Tuesday, March 11, 2008

So I was looking through my Google Alerts yesterday morning and something caught my eye. From a cursory glance of the day's blog entries, it looked as if the TSA was denying travel to Apple owners. I've never taken part in the war between Mac & PC users... I've used both and I enjoy using both, but I thought surely the TSA wasn't diving into the digital trenches and waging war against Apple. I know we're a versatile agency, but I would have to admit this would definitely be mission creep.

After digging into the articles, it turns out that a gentleman was traveling with his new MacBook Air. To make a long story short, it turns out the Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) gave some special attention to his new MacBook. Mac fans would tell you the TSOs simply couldn't resist getting a closer look at a fine piece of machinery. PC fans would tell you the TSOs are all PC fans and flagged the computer just to hassle the Mac guy. As a security fan, I can tell you that TSOs are trained to look for anomalies. Each TSO X-ray operator sees hundreds of laptops a day and some have been doing this for 6 years. They know what laptops are supposed to look like.

Here is my theory. Along comes the new MacBook Air. The thing is as thin as a potato chip, and looks completely different than any other laptop the TSOs have ever seen. They are seldom seen at TSA checkpoints due to their newness and the fact that they can be hard to find sometimes.

To help prove my theory, I've contacted Apple to see if I can process a MacBook Air through an X-ray and see how it looks. If it does indeed look odd, I'm going to take a picture and send it to TSA Training to help avoid future issues with MacBooks. The jury is out for now, but I'll post an update as soon as I can get my hands on the MacBook Air.

Click here to see my MacBook Air screening results (and, I've put together a movie).

One thing is for sure though. This was just a case of diligent TSOs paying special attention to something that caught their eye. Exactly what they are trained to do.

Bob
TSA Evolution Blog Team *********** Update 3/12/08 ************Still checking with Apple, but I wanted to highlight a post we received from Mr. Nygard. He’s the gentleman who posted about the experience he had while traveling with his MacBook Air. I’d like to thank Mr. Nygard for taking the time to comment on our blog. Here’s what he had to say:

It was my experience and blog post that got all this attention recently.

One of my purposes in writing this piece was to point out something I thought was interesting: namely that the x-ray screeners are trained to look for certain things--"landmarks", if you will--in the images they review.

Before last week, I had never given a moment's thought to the training or procedures behind the ubiquitous screening. Like many people, I supposed that they were just looking for obvious problems: suspicious outlines, coils of wires, etc.

I found it interesting that there might be a similar checklist of things that should be present: battery, hard drive, optical drive, and so on. I don't think most people would realize that.

Some people have interpreted me as variously "blasting", "vilifying", or "insulting" the TSA agents in question. This was not my intention. It appears to come mainly from people reacting to second-hand information, instead of reading the original post. ~ Michael Nygard

153 comments:

Shouldn't TSA stay ahead of the curve on new technology, instead of trying to put a spin on it after it has left your grasp? Apple isn't exactly a fly by night company, and this new product was both anticipated and well advertised. It would be nice for the TSO's to get a heads up on things like this and know what to look for.

"It would be nice for the TSO's to get a heads up on things like this and know what to look for."

Oh hey, there's a new kind of shampoo out. Let's get all the TSO's together and brief them on that.

Oh, and I saw some cool shoes at the mall today, let's brief the TSO's on that too.

Come on. If TSO's had that much extra time to be briefed on every single new electronic item that came out, TSO's would never have time to do screening. They'd be sitting in a classroom their entire shift.

Regardless of what this blog says to try to help, people are going to cut it down. I'm not really seeing any viable suggestions from people commenting on these blogs. I'm glad that soldiers like me are still fighting in Iraq so you morons have the time/freedom/opportunity to post hateful and idiotic messages to a government branch that's trying to help you. I say that if you guys want it that way, cut off all the security at Laguardia, O'Hare, LAX, Seattle, and DFW for a week and see what crazy crap ends up on planes.

I say more power to the TSO's that are alert enough to check out something different so they know in the future what said product is supposed to look like.

Nobody's saying that the TSA has to be aware of every new piece of technology. But a computer from a major manufacturer? One that's received an enormous amount of press in the past months leading up to its release, both in the technological press and in the mainstream press? That I expect the TSA should be aware of.

Additionally, I'd like to hear a reason why they continued to delay this man when a second TSA came up and told them it was an actual computer.

First, thank you for your service to your country. You clearly believe in what you are doing in Iraq, and while there are not words strong enough in the English language to express the level to which I personally disagree with the reason that our government has chosen to send you there, I support your willingness to serve. Nonetheless, while I support you personally, I do take issue with the following bit of your statement:

"Regardless of what this blog says to try to help, people are going to cut it down. I'm not really seeing any viable suggestions from people commenting on these blogs. I'm glad that soldiers like me are still fighting in Iraq so you morons have the time/freedom/opportunity to post hateful and idiotic messages to a government branch that's trying to help you. I say that if you guys want it that way, cut off all the security at Laguardia, O'Hare, LAX, Seattle, and DFW for a week and see what crazy crap ends up on planes."

Going point by point:

1. If you have taken the time to read through everything on the various sections of the blog, you will find that many people have made many helpful suggestions, from signs that provide a passengers bill of rights, to enhanced training in customer service to TSOs, to cultural sensitivity training for front line personnel, to much clearer definition on the TSA website as to what is a liquid and what is not -- these would all help out. Nonetheless, what you view as helpful and what the TSA views as helpful and what the writer of any particular comment views as helpful may not be completely in line with one another. This a public forum and, at least in theory, "all views are welcome," including ones that don't agree with yours.

2. I personally happen to disagree with the proposition that the TSA does anything better or more thoroughly or keeps the flying public in any way safer than it was prior to 9/11 and I have yet to see anything that any TSO blogger or TSA apologist or "official" blogger has put out there to date that has changed my mind, yet I keep looking. I would like to see the TSA defunded, disbanded, and security returned to the control of the airlines as it was before. I resent the insinuation that because I don't fall hook, line, and sinker for the government line that I am some kind of "moron" (your word, not mine -- I have been very careful not to resort to name calling in my many posts here and while tempting, I shall refrain from doing so now).

3. The government's own auditors as well as TSA's own auditors have shown that the TSOs miss a significant percentage of the prohibited items that go through the checkpoints. There are plenty of "prohibited" items at any given moment past the screening area in any airport just as a function of running an airport (are you going to use a plastic butter knife as a screwdriver?) All we need is to keep the manifestly dangerous stuff off the planes -- the guns, the big knives, and the actual explosives -- you know the real ones, not the pretend ones that we're all supposed to be afraid that someone is going to cook up in an airplane lav while the plane is bouncing through turbulent skies, and keep those cockpit doors closed, bolted tight and reinforced.

Effectively Mr. Anonymous, the TSO was confronted with something that was clearly not a bomb. It was clearly not a knife. It was clearly not an explosive. It was clearly not on the prohibited items list. You claim to be fighting for our freedoms. One of those freedoms is that under the law, anything that is not expressly prohibited is permitted. TSA's ignorance of new technology is not an excuse anymore than TSA would accept someone claiming ignorance of the rules at the security checkpoint while trying to bring through a 5oz tube of toothpaste.

I also remind you Mr. Anonymous, you took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution when you put on that uniform. You did not take an oath to defend the country, you did not take an oath to defend the government, you did not take an oath even to defend the commander in chief. So yes, you are defending my right to put ideas out there with which you may disagree. Dissent is patriotism in its highest form.

Additionally, I'd like to hear a reason why they continued to delay this man when a second TSA came up and told them it was an actual computer.

As I'm not a TSO, perhaps I'm speaking out of turn, but while we definitely should trust our fellow workers, I would personally not want to be the guy that let something through that shouldn't have, and my only defense being "Well, Bob said it was cool". Yes, the Mac isn't a knife, bomb, or gun, but better safe than sorry.

BTW, the MacBook Air isn't the only computer that have a solid state drive, another computer that have one is the ThinkPad X300. BTW, the TSA had issues with new products before, for example, the OQO, Ultra-Mobile PCs, Nike+iPod.See http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9890349-37.html for some other examples.

"Yes, the Mac isn't a knife, bomb, or gun, but better safe than sorry.

Chance EoS Blog Team

March 11, 2008 7:08 PM"

As I said to the fine gentleman a little earlier, TSA's ignorance of technology is not an excuse that actually flies (whine all you like about budgets and resources, if you were really interested in keeping on top of things you'd find them somewhere). TSA has a list of prohibited items. Presumably anything that is not on that list is permitted on the plane, so long as it meets the size restrictions for carry-on baggage. Are you now telling me that TSOs can make up their own rules on the spot?

How did TSA compensate the gentleman who missed his flight because of TSA's ignorance and incompetence?

TSA has a list of prohibited items. Presumably anything that is not on that list is permitted on the plane, so long as it meets the size restrictions for carry-on baggage. Are you now telling me that TSOs can make up their own rules on the spot?

They do this by the one line that says (something to the effect) "this list is not exclusive in that any item we deem to pose a threat, may be confiscated."

How did TSA compensate the gentleman who missed his flight because of TSA's ignorance and incompetence?

Give you two chances and the first doesn't count. I suspect that they waved the guy through before having a laugh at this expense.

"TSA has a list of prohibited items. Presumably anything that is not on that list is permitted on the plane, so long as it meets the size restrictions for carry-on baggage. Are you now telling me that TSOs can make up their own rules on the spot?

They do this by the one line that says (something to the effect) "this list is not exclusive in that any item we deem to pose a threat, may be confiscated."

This is pretty much why I post the stuff that I post. People are afraid of the TSA because the TSA has license to act in a capricious and retaliatory fashion. The person at the receiving end of TSA's abuse dares not complain for fear of further abuse. My family is convinced that I'm "in for it" the next time I go through airport screening because of the less than complimentary things that I have said about the TSA and its policies and how I have urged people to use whatever legal means are at their disposal to protest. Terrorists use fear to manipulate. Does this not seem to be what the TSA is doing as well? When the rules are unclear, or when they can be made up on the spot; when you can be detained for any reason or no reason at all and not have to have that reason even disclosed to you; all of this smacks of police state tactics that we as Americans fought against in WWII, the Korean War, and to a lesser extent Vietnam and even the Cold War against the Soviet Union. We are much better people than that.

"How did TSA compensate the gentleman who missed his flight because of TSA's ignorance and incompetence?

Give you two chances and the first doesn't count. I suspect that they waved the guy through before having a laugh at this expense."

Heh... I already know the answer... I just want to hear someone from the TSA admit it and try to defend it.

Thanks for posting a link to his blog, it provided more information than the other source.

Reading the blog it looks to me as if Mr. Seasoned Traveler did not allow enough time for the screening. If he would have been there the recommended two hours before departure he would not have missed his flight.

Reading the blog I noticed a few things, one the TSOs were not rude to him, two the TSOs did not seem to take an extraordinary amount of time to determine the Mac was safe to fly.

Sadly not everyone keeps up on the bleeding edge of consumer electronics. The TSOs did the right thing, they came across something they were not familiar with and investigated. Once they determined, with the help of a younger TSO, that the device was really a lap top, the man was on his way.

It is not the TSA's fault that the passenger did not get there with the recommended "time to spare".

The TSA has enough real faults to complain about, not knowing about a Macbook Air is not one of them.

I would recommend that you have Apple send TWO MacBook Air units, one with the standard hard drive, and one with the solid state drive. This is so that TSOs can know that the unit is not a threat when they see one coming through the XRay machine, look at the physical location where the hard drive is in the laptop, and see "something else" besides the telltale disc-and-arm-in-a-rectangle configuration of the standard drive.

That would be covering all the bases: Send two images to all TSOs, one with a standard drive, and one with the solid state drive.

While I think it's somewhat comical (and if it happened to me, unspeakably frustrating) that this poor gentleman was stopped because of his MacBook Air, I can imagine that, on an XRay, a solid state drive might look something like packed explosives...

This is exactly why airport security should be returned to the airlines. The airline has incentive to protect AND serve its passengers. The TSA just follows a set of guidelines and asserts its power, with NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO CUSTOMERS. The airline is a business and as such can't afford to have a reputation for allowing its flights to be unsafe. They also have to do this while maintaining a reputation for treating their customers well. TSA doesn't give a rip about treating customers well. What results is security being provided inadequately at times while alienating customers. This is bad both for the airline's reputation and for customers' safety.

Even if the TSO was "admiring" the new laptop - I think that's a poor excuse for stopping a patron. Especially when he ends up missing his flight. Shouldn't TSOs be professional enough to wait and "admire" the MacBook Air at their local Apple Store during their off-day? It'd make more sense than the officer gawking at it, calling his superior over to see it and eventually making the patron miss his flight.

WinstonSmith, you and me both. I suspect that if they knew who I was, were intent on showing who was boss, then they would have me dragged away from the screening process by my heels, disappeared, nevermore to be seen.

Frankly, I am more concerned with a more convenience in getting to the gate and taking off on time than I am with terrorism on airplane. So what if there is a tiny bit more risk of dying due to terrorism. I'll take the chance.

Now, we lose hours of productivity waiting in the security lines and suffer lots of stress being harassed by the TSOs and worrying about missing our flights. It's not worth it. I'd pay extra to not have to suffer the TSA, but what does the government care about my preference?

Gee Bob, way to spin the story to make it look like TSA agents were just 'paying extra special attention' rather than being complete dimwits who couldn't figure out what the heck a laptop is.

I guess we should all be thankful we're even allowed to wear clothes on the plane. I'm sorry, but security does NOT equal safety; not in the slightest.

Way to protect us from solid-state drives and any shampoo bottles bigger than three ounces, fellas. Too bad you're doing it on MY dime. As a taxpayer, I look forward to the day when I can say to all of you: You're fired!

Umm... to all the people that says that it's too hard to keep up with new tech-

The TSA shouldn't need to actively keep up because Apple's practically parading the thing in everyone's faces. I've seen the commercial for the Macbook Air at least 3 times per hour of TV. If the TSOs *still* don't know what it is, it's ignorance, plain and simple.

Well, my thanks to all of you for the lively discussion, so far. Both Spitzer and this new spin by the TSA caught me off guard today though my girlfriend has an even more jaundiced and cynical eye than I have. She is really cynical about crusaders, no matter what stripes or uniform they wear.

We'll get to hear how our resident BDO, Bob, fairs staring down a Mac Air, if indeed he doesn't get tired of waiting for Apple to send him one or two... so stay tuned for another day of constant bickering, meandering, and hopeless CYA defense.

Agreed on the last comment, about privatization of airport security. Maybe things would work quicker that way...

About the Macbook Air though, it seems like some TSA checkpoints know about the device and some don't. I have now taken my (HDD-based) Air through the Frontier Airlines security (DEN) twice and SAT security (can't remember the terminal) once. No problems there. Even though I was toting aorund TWO laptops (one regular, one Air) at the time. Guess it's a big case of YMMV...

So TSA raised another false alarm and the dude missed his flight. That's what happens if you have people do visual inspections on 2,000,000 people per day looking for a less than 1 in a billion terrorist: you get all false alarms.

What threat is TSA protecting us against here? Bombs? Bombs aren't good for hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists didn't use bombs because you can't fly an airplane into a building after you bomb it.

It was my experience and blog post that got all this attention recently.

One of my purposes in writing this piece was to point out something I thought was interesting: namely that the x-ray screeners are trained to look for certain things--"landmarks", if you will--in the images they review.

Before last week, I had never given a moment's thought to the training or procedures behind the ubiquitous screening. Like many people, I supposed that they were just looking for obvious problems: suspicious outlines, coils of wires, etc.

I found it interesting that there might be a similar checklist of things that should be present: battery, hard drive, optical drive, and so on. I don't think most people would realize that.

Some people have interpreted me as variously "blasting", "villifying", or "insulting" the TSA agents in question. This was not my intention. It appears to come mainly from people reacting to second-hand information, instead of reading the original post.

They do this by the one line that says (something to the effect) "this list is not exclusive in that any item we deem to pose a threat, may be confiscated."

This is pretty much why I post the stuff that I post. People are afraid of the TSA because the TSA has license to act in a capricious and retaliatory fashion. The person at the receiving end of TSA's abuse dares not complain for fear of further abuse.

If a TSO discovers a device that is dangerous, but which due to its newness or novelty or through a mistake isn't on the prohibited list, common sense would say that this item should be stopped. On the one hand several posts are criticizing our apparent lack of flexibility in not being aware of the Mac and other new tech, and yet criticizing us for giving our TSOs the flexibility to deal with this item.

"Some people have interpreted me as variously "blasting", "villifying", or "insulting" the TSA agents in question. This was not my intention. It appears to come mainly from people reacting to second-hand information, instead of reading the original post.

What threat is TSA protecting us against here? Bombs? Bombs aren't good for hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists didn't use bombs because you can't fly an airplane into a building after you bomb it.

The Bojinka plot involved bombs, and would have cause casualties similar in scale to the 9/11 plot if successful. A more recent example is the 2006 UK transatlantic aircraft bomb plot. It too involved bombs on airplanes.

This post should embarrass the TSA. Not only couldn't they figure out that a "mystery device" with a 13" screen, apple logo and keyboard was a computer. They now make a post kissing the butt of a corporation and praising their work.

This is a government agency. Not a fanclub. If your guys can't figure out that you should boot a computer to check if it's a computer then the agency shouldn't even exist.

". . . On the one hand several posts are criticizing our apparent lack of flexibility in not being aware of the Mac and other new tech, . . ."

I think perhaps you have misunderstood the posts. The criticism was not of a lack of flexibility but, rather a lack of awareness of a product that is 1) produced by a major company, 2) has been the subject of extensive advertising, and is 3) aimed directly at the frequent flyer market. It takes no great leap of imagination to realize that the Macbook Air will almost certainly become a common item carried by the traveling public.

I really don't think that it is unreasonable to expect TSA to provide periodic refesher training to its screeners on new items that they can be expected to encounter. The episode discussed here demonstrates that either such training did not occur or the screeners in question were too dense to absorb it.

The fact that a TSA person has now asked for a loaner Macbook Air for training purposes is an encouraging sign, but it does confirm that TSA is still a reactive agency, always locking the barn door after the horse has fled.

Bear in mind that the guy missed his flight because TSA subjected his MBA to further screening, and because the guy didn't leave sufficient extra time for unexpected screening. That is why the TSA and the airlines advise you to arrive early. Many people listen to this advice and figure, heck, what are the chances, I'll probably make it. And they usually do. Except when they don't. Fortunately when that happens, they have the news wires and gripe blogs to complain to!

>> I say more power to the TSO's that are alert enough to check out something different so they know in the future what said product is supposed to look like.<<

Not on my time when I'm trying to catch a plane, you don't. I don't care to be a guinea pig for some TSO's ignorance. Train your people ahead of time. Analysis of both threats and non-threats is part of intel.

Do I now have to worry about being detained because I have some piece of electronics that the screeners are unfamiliar with? I sometimes travel with a Panasonic Toughbook CF-17, which is also a rather unique, ruggedized notebook PC. The case is a magnesium alloy, and the "ports on the back" are not immediately visible, because they're behind weatherproof covers. Also, it's a lot smaller than a standard notebook. What about my MP3 player, which is a Sony model that never became popular in the US? Are the screeners going to assume these items are bombs because they've never seen one before? It doesn't help that screeners don't seem to listen to explanations that might help dispel their doubts. (Oops, I forgot -- all passengers are assumed to be criminals.)

If the TSO's have doubts about some piece of electronics, why can't they Google the make and model, then review the results? When they start seeing hits on a variety of web sites, they'd know they're looking at a legit product. I shudder to think I'm at the mercy of the TSO's knowledge level of electronics (or lack thereof).

If the TSA as an organization works so hard on intel (the subject of the previous thread), why don't they look at new known non-threats, like new flavors of electronics coming on line?

I think I know the answer to my own question here -- the TSA is reactive and not proactive. It doesn't help that so many of the organization's knee-jerk reactions are devoid of common sense, and that the organization doesn't grasp the obvious until they have their face rubbed in it. Consider the following examples:

-- TSA is formed and bans actual weapons (makes sense), along with eyeglass repair kits and nail clippers (silly). Starts getting laughed at. (I loved the comedian's routine where he said TSA stands for Take Scissors Away.)

-- TSA mandates flying with luggage unlocked. Complaints of theft from luggage begin. TSA and airlines point fingers at each other. Passengers are left holding the bag (no pun intended). TSA suggests using zip ties to close luggage. TSA never explains how passengers are supposed to cut through zip ties at destination, because of "no knives or scissors" and a pair of wire cutters violates the "no tools" rule.

-- Eyeglass repair kits and nail clippers they are now OK, but cigarette lighters are banned. Matches are OK. Theory is that the smell from a Richard Reid wannabe lighting a match to set off another shoe bomb will alert surrounding passengers. I guess they are supposed to act faster than the fuze can burn.

-- Lighter rule done away with, because of the distraction of screeners searching carryons for lighters seems to negatively impact search for more serious items, like bombs. Funny, if you don't have the bomb, then the lighter doesn't do you much good.

-- TSA ends up tied with IRS for negative public opinion. Only FEMA does worse. In response, TSA starts this blog. Appears surprised by the number of passengers complaining about various aspects of the agency.

-- Passengers complain of rude treatment by TSA personnel and retaliation from screeners and supervisors for complaining. TSA responds that passengers who are treated rudely should file report with on site supervisor, despite likelihood of retaliation (fox is watching the chicken coop). Why is it the passenger's responsibility to report inappropriate TSO behavior? Why doesn't the TSA police its own people? Why didn't the TSA notice the unnecessarily negative atmosphere at checkpoints and take action, instead of waiting for things to get this bad?

-- Passengers complain about incredible inconsistencies in application of 3-1-1. TSO's respond that if people would follow "simple rules" everything would be OK. If the 3-1-1 rule is so "simple", then why is it so hard to enforce on a consistent basis? TSO posts cite alleged requirements, such as that bottles have to be "labeled", but can't post a link to the requirement.

-- A mother complains of being forced to face away from her daughter during secondary screening. Mother is understandably very upset. (Are there no parents at the TSA to notice the problem with this procedure? Where's common sense? As Bill Engvall would say, "here's your sign.") TSA then changes procedures so that children and parents are not separated during secondary.

-- TSO starts to open sterile feeding tube. Passenger objects. Instead of realizing he might be wrong and checking with a supervisor, screener replies that he will if he wants to. (Just a little arrogant.) Story ends up in the media. TSA eats crow, and ends up apologizing. After six years in operation, the TSA doesn't know that sterile medical devices should not be opened during screening? Why didn't the supervisor note that there was a problem brewing and step in?

-- TSO's cause delay because of unfamiliarity with new Apple notebook, and passenger misses flight. Crow for dinner again. After the fact, TSA attempts to put positive spin on incident, painting situation as correct handling of an unfamiliar item.

Lest I leave myself open to charges of "doing nothing but complain", here's few suggestions (never mind that I think the problems stated above imply their own solutions).

-- The TSA should start taking responsibility for its own actions and inactions. Quit putting the pain and consequences of the organization's mistakes on the passenger. As mentioned before, if the 3-1-1 rule is so "simple", then why is it so hard to enforce on a consistent basis? As I suggested in another post, the same guidelines the TSA provides to its own personnel should be provided to the public, so we can all be on the same page. Do away with the local improvisations on the rules.

-- If items are wrongly confiscated, then the TSA should reimburse the passenger.

-- Screeners should have ready access to internet to check out unfamiliar items. Procedures should be in place to check with a central clearinghouse of subject matter experts when needed, instead of a bunch of screeners pooling their ignorance. (I find it frightening that a bunch of screeners can decide how much medicine, baby formula, contact lens solution, etc. is "reasonable" with no apparent training on the subject.)

-- Somebody needs to be the voice of reason and common sense at the checkpoint. Supervisors should stop automatically backing whatever the screeners say. If the screeners have so much latitude to decree that something not specifically prohibited can still be banned (inventing rules on the spot, in other words), create some checks and balances in the system. (What happened to the "government of laws and not of men", anyway?) If the TSA needs to create a separate "passenger advocate" at the checkpoint, so be it. This might have prevented the Apple computer and feeding tube incidents. Quit being so arrogant. The flying public knows the TSO's don't know everything, so quit pretending you do.

-- TSA should establish a "service level agreement" (as we call them in my profession) that says any passenger delayed over 15 minutes while the TSA scratches its head will be compensated. If the passenger misses his flight, the TSA will get the individual on the next available flight and reimburse any and all out of pocket expense.

The dude missed his flight because he did not allow for enough time at security. If he would have been there at the recommended time he would not have missed his flight.

Please go read the man's blog, just take off your "I hate the TSA glasses" and read.

Once you are being honest with yourselves you will see the only reason he missed the flight is because he cut his time too close.

He is a seasoned traveler, so much so he has to check his Blackberry to figure out what town he is in. As a seasoned traveler he knows how "quick" he can get through security by knowing all the steps he has to complete. This time he cut it too close because he was not expecting a few minutes delay while they looked at the new laptop.

Human nature would dictate if the delay had been extraordinary he would have complained about it in his blog. He did not. He did complain that sometimes there is an airline agent to check his boarding pass and sometimes there isn’t, but he did not complain the delay was long.

Steve Jobs did not make him miss his flight, the TSOs did not make him miss his flight, HE made himself miss his flight.End Of Story.

Well Chance, your tortured reasoning in the following leaves me nearly dumbstruck:

"If a TSO discovers a device that is dangerous, but which due to its newness or novelty or through a mistake isn't on the prohibited list, common sense would say that this item should be stopped. On the one hand several posts are criticizing our apparent lack of flexibility in not being aware of the Mac and other new tech, and yet criticizing us for giving our TSOs the flexibility to deal with this item.

Chance - EoS blog Team."

In another blog post, in fact the one just prior to this, you (meaning the TSA) were trying to sell us on the important role that intelligence plays in everything that the TSA does. Now of course this met with a great deal of derision and laughter from anyone who has actually had to deal with the TSA, myself included and much fun was had by all. But let's pretend just for a moment that you do have intelligence coming into the TSA. Would it not be reasonable to think that such intelligence would include information about new technologies that are coming on the mass consumer market that are likely to start to show up at airport checkpoints? The fact that this item did show up at the checkpoint and was not immediately recognized as a harmless personal computer smacks of both incompetence and negligence on the part of the TSA front line screeners as well as the Kip Hawley's much vaunted Keystone Cop-esque intelligence squad. "I didn't have time to keep up on the latest developments" is not an excuse the traveling public should accept on the part of the TSA any more than a TSA screener would accept a traveler saying "I didn't know that I had to have my liquids in 3 oz containers in a zip top bag outside my carry on for inspection."

In the case at hand the object clearly posed no obvious danger. It was not a knife. It was not a firearm. It was not explosive. It is not illegal to carry electronic equipment from place to place in the US. There was no reason to have stopped this gentleman. If your screeners can't tell the difference between a piece of electronic equipment and a gun, knife, or bomb, then perhaps you need to look at your hiring practices.

You have a tough job to convince me and many more like me that the TSA is an agency that has earned its right to consume my tax dollars when the only measurable results you have been able to show in terms of passenger safety put you in no better stead than the private screeners we had prior to 9/11.

TSO's don't have net access? Why not make a quick visit to www.macbookair.com and have a look? Gone are the critical thinkers... 911 and your fear-mongering President has you all nervous at everything now... Maybe that SSD was a box cutter huh? Don't want to let one of those through...

I love the spin Bob, but you aren't selling me on your "theory." The MBA, out of the ordinary? Absolutely.

Is this off topic?It takes less training to become a TSA checker person than a star bucks barista. But who has more power. You can put a friendly coat of web 2.0 on fear mongering but the TSA is still whats its meant to be. You're not fooling independent thinkers, were sick of being treated like dogs by people who could not gain employment anywhere else.

Apple could have touted the fantasticness of the new mac book air for the last 3 years before release, unfortunately in all their commercials I don't recall seeing an xray image to go along with all the publicity.

The sad thing is you all don't truly understand how difficult image interpretation is and never will. Sometimes you just have to go on the "something just doesn't look right" factor. Along with any number of strange occurrences that can warp an xray image. TSO's do the best we can with the technology we are provided with

Found it quite funny that you think airlines care about customer service, seems you haven't flown in a very long time. There are little differences between the apparent lack of appreciation for flying patrons that TSA shows and the Airlines show, its all the same, and they could all use a basic 101 course on how to be friendly.

I'm sorry, but this is yet another case of TSA incompetence. The comments supporting the TSA's harassment of this fellow with the Mac Book Air really shows how weak Americans have become. Instead of sticking up for themselves, they prefer to have a bunch of former welfare recipients "protect" them from the boogie man.

Land of the free and home of the brave? My fellow Americans who can't seem to function without "daddy" holding their hand through airports have basically wiped out that ideal.

These formerly unemployable people who are now TSOs want to keep you scared so they can keep their jobs. I agree with the previous commenter: disband the TSA and return safety and security to the individual airliner.

After dealing with the TSA once, I decided to never fly again. It's not worth the hassle and humiliation.

Will I have the same problems with the Asus EeePC and similar "half-laptops"? I have one of these "unusual small laptops" that may also be looking unusual to the TSO's for the same reason as the MacBook Air -- no optical drive, no hard drive, looks more like an oversized PDA. Maybe it's worth spending at least $300 (on sale at Newegg.com) to run it through the machines.

Chance: The Bojinka plot involved nitroglycerin-filled contact lens solution containers, and could still be pulled off today (insofar as messing with nitroglycerin is ever a good idea--without desensitizers, it's likely to go off prematurely, and with desensitizers added you have to know what you're doing to achieve detonation). Even if you eliminated ALL liquids, and put "sniffers" at every portal, I can still think of a way to detonate a nitroglycerin-based bomb on an airplane. (Don't worry, I work for DHS and use my redteaming knowledge for good; not evil.)

The London bomb plot--making TATP in an airport lav--has been proven to be impossible. Please stop bringing it up; it only make the TSA look silly.

Chance, if your going to use examples of terrorist threats try using a recent example. The Bojinka plot occured in 1995 and failed not because of alert airport security, because the police discovered it because fo a chemical fire at the site being used to build the bombs.

If I remeber correctly the London plot was also stopped by the police, long before they even thought of getting on a plane.

Good intelligence will prevent terrorist attacks. The TSA needs to deal with TSO's high failure rate to identify guns and bombs during tests. Instead of using examples that don't apply.

Originally posted by Bob:One thing is for sure though. This was just a case of diligent TSOs paying special attention to something that caught their eye. Exactly what they are trained to do…

Bob, you fail to point out in your little writeup that the guy MISSED HIS FLIGHT because the "diligent" and overzealous TSOs detained him for so long.

Laptops are not prohibited. If they were suspicious about the new model, they should have run an ETD swab (30 seconds), maybe had the passenger open it up or talk about it a bit (45 seconds), and let him go on his way.

Instead of saying your TSOs were being "diligent" and "doing their job," TSA at that airport and nationally should be issuing a formal, written, published apology to this passenger. Then TSA, perferably out of the pockets of the screeners/supervisors that caused this mess, should be forced to pay compensation to this passenger.

Any time TSA confiscates something or detains a passenger to the point of missing his flight over an item that is 1) not on the prohibited items list, 2) not an explosive, 3) not a weapon, 4) not illegal, the TSOs involved should be FIRED, with prejudice.

This incident is a perfect example of what is wrong with TSA. Bob, for supporting this debacle instead of admitting TSA's error, you personally owe an apology to this passenger, everyone who travels with a laptop, and the readers of this blog.

In the interest of full disclosure "Bob" should have mentioned that the TSA caused the traveller to miss his flight. But that would defeat the spin on this posting.

The traveller missed his flight.

It sounds like one of the TSOs had a brief moment of rational thought and suggested to the rest the laptop was "ok" while the senior agent either reverted to a thug-like, do-you-want-to-fly attitude. Either that or he was hoping the traveller would abandon the laptop and he'd score a free new toy.

Further, the traveller reported that his laptop was brought to one cubicle while the rest of his belongings were brought to another cubicle. I'm certain if something were to go missing the TSA would take FULL RESPONSIBILTY for the search outside the presence of the traveller.

EVA said - I don't know. If I was that guy, and missed my flight because a TSO didn't know a laptop when they saw one... I'd be pretty aggravated.

Aggravated but alive. I see what they do as a no win situation. I know I am no threat and it sounds like most on the posts feel they are not a threat but how in the heck is a screener who has looked at you for the first time in their life for all of a few seconds supposed to know? Everytime TSA has tried to impliment things that look into your lives the ACLU and others stop them.

I used to be in bomb disposal and see this as a lot of the same mindset. It is all about attention to detail and taking nothing for granted. In some jobs you can go to sleep and in others the results of assuming and not really caring can get you killed. If TSA misses something the result can be life ending....for many. I know, I know.....but look at all they miss. Humans are not perfect and either is the technology. How about slow down, arrive a little early and look at all they catch.

By the way for those who say you can not mix a liquid and make a viable explosive.....your nuts. You would be amazed what you can do with a little chemistery and an explosives background. I'll take the security check and pray for better technology to help the human element. I don't think it is just a religious waco hell bent on killing but if you watch what to me seems to be an increase in school shoots and such it appears to be becomming more and more common. To bad I say but in time the mindset may come to an event near you and maybe, just maybe some security screener will catch it.

By the way Bob, see if Apple will let you keep the comp., tell them you are a product tester:)

Chance: The Bojinka plot involved nitroglycerin-filled contact lens solution containers, and could still be pulled off today (insofar as messing with nitroglycerin is ever a good idea--without desensitizers, it's likely to go off prematurely, and with desensitizers added you have to know what you're doing to achieve detonation). Even if you eliminated ALL liquids, and put "sniffers" at every portal, I can still think of a way to detonate a nitroglycerin-based bomb on an airplane. (Don't worry, I work for DHS and use my redteaming knowledge for good; not evil.)

The London bomb plot--making TATP in an airport lav--has been proven to be impossible. Please stop bringing it up; it only make the TSA look silly.

The examples provided speak to the intent of extremists to use explosives, which was the point being debated. You are discussing capability, which while related was not the point being argued.

"Will I have the same problems with the Asus EeePC and similar "half-laptops"?"

One poster in the Asus Eee forum remarked that the TSO thought the Eee was cute. They have been out for 4-5 months now, and should blaze the trail for other similar devices, plus the form factor is similar to a small DVD player despite the keyboard and lack of an optical drive. Some people have been modding their Eee's, however, and that could cause alarms....

Chance, if your going to use examples of terrorist threats try using a recent example. The Bojinka plot occured in 1995 and failed not because of alert airport security, because the police discovered it because fo a chemical fire at the site being used to build the bombs.

If I remeber correctly the London plot was also stopped by the police, long before they even thought of getting on a plane.

Good intelligence will prevent terrorist attacks. The TSA needs to deal with TSO's high failure rate to identify guns and bombs during tests. Instead of using examples that don't apply.

You suggest I use a more recent example, and in the next paragraph you discuss - wait for it now - the more recent example I used. I'm willing to take fair criticism, but come on. As for the relevance of the examples, please see my comment above.

"The examples provided speak to the intent of extremists to use explosives, which was the point being debated. You are discussing capability, which while related was not the point being argued."

Once again Chance let me remind you that Bojinka occured in 1995, thats 13 years ago. Try using more recent examples to show intent. Ones where the TSA and not the police or an intelligence agency stopped the attempt.

"You suggest I use a more recent example, and in the next paragraph you discuss - wait for it now - the more recent example I used. I'm willing to take fair criticism, but come on. As for the relevance of the examples, please see my comment above."

Yes chance I did use the more recent example, to make my point that the police and not airport security prevented the attack.

You made the Bojinka reference sound as if it was as recent as the London incedent.

Chance, are you saying that TSA's procedures would guarantee safety from the Bojinka plot? Or that safety under TSA is significantly better than the airline-run security during the 7 years following Bojinka?

As for the dude missing his plane by leaving himself only a few minutes, TSA themselves advise security times of only minutes: TSA wait times. It is another example of minimizing the costs of TSA -- TSA pretends it is only a minor inconvenience, if people pay attention to your contradictory rules and don't do anything "unusual". However, the price the 2,000,000 daily passengers must pay is that they must allow for the extra hour it might take is you actually try to bring something undreamed of in the philosophy of the screener. TSA doesn't cost people just a few minutes, TSA costs people the entire time they budget to deal with the uncertainties of dealing with your inconsistent rules, workforce, and enforcement.

Well Chance, your tortured reasoning in the following leaves me nearly dumbstruck:

Sorry, I'll try to leave you fully dumbstruck in the future.

...let's pretend just for a moment that you do have intelligence coming into the TSA. Would it not be reasonable to think that such intelligence would include information about new technologies that are coming on the mass consumer market that are likely to start to show up at airport checkpoints? The fact that this item did show up at the checkpoint and was not immediately recognized as a harmless personal computer smacks of both incompetence and negligence on the part of the TSA front line screeners as well as the Kip Hawley's much vaunted Keystone Cop-esque intelligence squad.

While my office does keep an eye out for items that could potentially be suspicious (shoes with built-in electronics for example) our primary duty is to look at threat information from a variety of sources for review and analysis. I can't imagine any scenario where I would have seen an ad for this particualar product and said "Hey, this needs to go to our screeners ASAP!"

In the case at hand the object clearly posed no obvious danger. It was not a knife. It was not a firearm. It was not explosive. It is not illegal to carry electronic equipment from place to place in the US. There was no reason to have stopped this gentleman. If your screeners can't tell the difference between a piece of electronic equipment and a gun, knife, or bomb, then perhaps you need to look at your hiring practices.

We see artfully concealed weapons and modified devices every day. So we should simply wave through something that is "clearly" not a gun, knife, or explosive? The words "tortured" and "reasoning" seem to come to mind.

You have a tough job to convince me and many more like me that the TSA is an agency that has earned its right to consume my tax dollars when the only measurable results you have been able to show in terms of passenger safety put you in no better stead than the private screeners we had prior to 9/11.

I don't believe it is proper for me to give an opinion on what is a political policy decision of private versus government screening. However, I am skeptical that in this particular case a private screening force would have necessarily acted differantly.

"On the one hand several posts are criticizing our apparent lack of flexibility in not being aware of the Mac and other new tech, and yet criticizing us for giving our TSOs the flexibility to deal with this item."

This is because whatever flexibility screeners have is invariably used against citizens, and to contradict TSA's own stated policies and procedures. Thus screeners who decide to steal a child's baby food or force people to dispose of items that should be allowed on planes are protected to the disadvantages of citizens who are trying to follow your asinine and pointless rules that do nothing to make anyone safer.

"The examples provided speak to the intent of extremists to use explosives, which was the point being debated. You are discussing capability, which while related was not the point being argued.

Chance EoS blog team."

You know, Chance, people keep asking if the London would-be bombers had a working, binary liquid explosive, and TSA keeps refusing to answer. Why is that, Chance? Are you afraid your idiotic policy can't stand the light of day, Chance? Is that what's going on, Chance?

After reading all this... I can only say that it looks like I will have to buy a ticket with an overnight layover when I get back to America. I have a lot of electronic stuff that was never released in America- looks like I'm going to be spending an eternity in line explaining how it all works and trying to keep my stuff from being confiscated or something just because it's foreign to the TSOs. And the worst part is that I pretty much have no compensation if it's taken from me. I'd like for "chance" to explain that last bit.

Originally posted by Chance:We see artfully concealed weapons and modified devices every day. So we should simply wave through something that is "clearly" not a gun, knife, or explosive? The words "tortured" and "reasoning" seem to come to mind.

Modified devices are neither prohibited nor illegal. Some of us are engineers and "modify" devices for a living or hobby, and sometimes we have to travel with them.

BTW, I have flown (in the last year) with a laptop that I had heavily modified myself, including replacing the hard drive with a flash card (similar to the concept in the Macbook) and adding a custom circuit board. Fortunately, TSA left it alone. I would not have been surprised if they had been suspicious, but what I would expect in that situation is courteous/professional behavior, and ETD swab, maybe a minute or two of discussion, and then to be allowed to go on my way in time to make my flight.

TSA really screwed up here. You made the guy MISS HIS FLIGHT, and didn't even apologize. I'm amazed that you're bragging about that on your blog.

Mistakes will happen, but the best way for TSA to gain some credibility is to admit to those mistakes and apologize to and compensate those adversely impacted.

Chance: "The examples provided speak to the intent of extremists to use explosives, which was the point being debated. You are discussing capability, which while related was not the point being argued."

If you just have intent, it's a thought crime, and not a necessarily a threat worth wasting 2,000,000 hours of people's time every day. Spending that time would be worth it if the threat was significant and the procedures you put in place would actually protect against it. On the other hand, spending the 2,000,000 hours per day on first aid training might be a far better use of the our resources.

The risk of metorites hitting people is real, but what it would cost to protect people from the risk clearly isn't worth the cost. I'm sure the underground home-builders would love to get a government mandate to move people underground, and would love to point out the fact that meteorites exist hand have killed cows to defend their industry. I'm not convinced that TSA is more useful or effective than metorite insurance.

On further reflection, it does seem as though it would be worth a laptop manufacturer's time to make an X-Ray image of each new laptop using a TSA type scanner, and to provide that to your office for reference and training - or to lend you units so you can do it yourselves. Does TSA have a point of contact for this? If not, you might want to create one and send it around to Lenovo, Dell etc, and also send someone to the trade shows to spread the word.

Anonymous said... Not every TSO is a geek (I mean that with all respect as I am one). When I first saw the MBA on x-ray I had to pause for a moment. I didn't look like any laptop I've ever seen on x-ray.

The fact that this item did show up at the checkpoint and was not immediately recognized as a harmless personal computer smacks of both incompetence and negligence on the part of the TSA front line screeners as well as the Kip Hawley's much vaunted Keystone Cop-esque intelligence squad.

While my office does keep an eye out for items that could potentially be suspicious (shoes with built-in electronics for example) our primary duty is to look at threat information from a variety of sources for review and analysis. I can't imagine any scenario where I would have seen an ad for this particualar product and said "Hey, this needs to go to our screeners ASAP!"

So you're telling me that you're the only person in intelligence there? Intelligence is keeping track of all sources of potential problems whether they come from inside or outside the country and that includes keeping up on the latest technology so you can know what is and is not a potential threat. When something is likely to start to show up at the checkpoints, especially if it is new and different and known to be harmless the screeners ought to be made aware of it so these kinds of incidents can be avoided. Period. No excuses.

In the case at hand the object clearly posed no obvious danger. It was not a knife. It was not a firearm. It was not explosive. It is not illegal to carry electronic equipment from place to place in the US. There was no reason to have stopped this gentleman. If your screeners can't tell the difference between a piece of electronic equipment and a gun, knife, or bomb, then perhaps you need to look at your hiring practices.

We see artfully concealed weapons and modified devices every day. So we should simply wave through something that is "clearly" not a gun, knife, or explosive? The words "tortured" and "reasoning" seem to come to mind.

Well let's see.. did your screener see a concealed weapon in the laptop in the x-ray? No. Did your screener check the laptop for explosives? Not according to the article. So I go back to my original question. Was this piece of electronic equipment a gun, a bomb, or a knife? Was it on the prohibited items list? Apparently not. Care to try again, this time with something that approaches an actual reasonable justification?

You have a tough job to convince me and many more like me that the TSA is an agency that has earned its right to consume my tax dollars when the only measurable results you have been able to show in terms of passenger safety put you in no better stead than the private screeners we had prior to 9/11 and you continue to fail as badly at that as you do at catching actual dangerous stuff at the checkpoints.

It is a great idea to get the Macbook air and get good xray photos to brief the workforce with. I for one, would appreciate the information whether it is before the Macbook came out or after.

The fact of the matter and what is important is that TSA will try and get these photos to train, NOW. I don't believe TSA wants to hassle someone with a new piece of technology, they just want to make sure the item is clear...so YOU can be safe while you fly.

Flight 1 - Little or no screening.Flight 2 - Current level of screening.

Which one will you prefer to get on?

With all of the unstable people out like a much more professional levelthere, I think I will choose Flight 2."

There are of course alternatives, like requiring a much higher level of professionalism and more training among the TSO's. Lets face it, travelers are going to see you and judge your performance by how you act and react to each situation. You owe it to yourselves to "prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet" and set higher standards for your interactions with the public.

Chance: The examples provided speak to the intent of extremists to use explosives, which was the point being debated. You are discussing capability, which while related was not the point being argued.

This is precisely the problem with TSA and DHS! You guys can't separate intent from capability. The London liquid bomb plot may have demonstrated intent, but the fact that it was an absolutely, 100%, unworkable plan, demonstrates that the guys behind it were not credible threats. Treating it as any sort of realistic possibility is stupid, and serves only to play into the terrorists' hands. It's OK to be afraid of someone with intent and capability. It's foolish to be afraid of people with intent and no capability.

3) Security reverted to the private airlines and airports, rather than being performed by a large, faceless,and unaccountable government agency

To some defenders of the TSA, the argument is presented as either (a) having TSA security or (b) having no security at all. It's an argument that makes no sense, and serves only to detract from real debate regarding the TSA.

3) Security reverted to the private airlines and airports, rather than being performed by a large, faceless,and unaccountable government agency

To some defenders of the TSA, the argument is presented as either (a) having TSA security or (b) having no security at all. It's an argument that makes no sense, and serves only to detract from real debate regarding the TSA.

March 12, 2008 1:24 PM

The airline security I saw in the past was pretty pathetic, corners cut because Corporations are interested in making money, not spending it unless they absoutely have to.

Right now we have no choice but to put up with the situation that way it is. The TSA has asked for opinions and way to improve. Many have been posted here which is why I asked what opinions are being considered.

I personally would much rather deal with an IRS agent than the TSA as it stands. At least the IRS shows some flexibility.

Going back to airline provided security is not the answer, the way things are now could be a lot better. I still prefer Flight 2 as opposed to Airline provided security on Flight 1.

Chance & Bob, how about an answer: What suggestions in the blogs are you looking at or considering implementing?

And if they did do security, they wouldn't do it any "nicer" or "easier" or "more secure" or whatever it is you think you want. In fact you'd probably see many of the same faces at screening, with different uniforms.

That last thing I would normally want to be considered is a "TSA defender" - it's an agency with real problems, most of which are never discussed here. But when you wade through the ideologues, wackjobs, dreamers and snobs who pepper the TSA-hate blogosphere, a certain amount of principled defense is unavoidable.

As a TSO currently the part of the mass argument is that it "wasn't an obvious threat"

I hate to break it to you all, but not all threats are obvious. Im not sure how much I can disclose so I will err on the side of caution, However I am very proficient at xray interpretation and in many testing and non testing environments both on and off the checkpoint I have caught threats merely on the "something doesnt look right" factor, as mentioned above in a previous comment.

The subtlety of threats would truly surprise you. The goal of someone planning to do harm is not going to make whatever they are bringing on the plane easy to spot and the idea that all threats are obvious is ludicrous.

That last thing I would normally want to be considered is a "TSA defender" - it's an agency with real problems, most of which are never discussed here. But when you wade through the ideologues, wackjobs, dreamers and snobs who pepper the TSA-hate blogosphere, a certain amount of principled defense is unavoidable.

I have to say that you are right. There are a lot of crazy people out there. But there are also a lot of people out there who legitimately feel that the TSA is doing an extremely poor job at an extremely high cost, both in terms of dollars and in terms of lost liberty. I happen to be one of them. I am not insane. I am, however, highly skeptical of anything that comes out of an agency that was set up under the auspices of the current administration in power who has shown itself to be from its unwillingness (fear?) to go on the record in its testimony regarding 9/11, to its lying this country into a war and subsequent occupation of a country that posed no actual threat to us (and is now rattling sabres against yet another), to its politically based firing of US attorneys, to its... to its ... to its... I could go on for quite a long time but I think you get the idea. I for one do not dispute that security is a necessary evil, and all it would take to win me over is definitive concrete proof that a real threat exists (which has yet to come out -- and please spare me yet another link to the London bomb plot... there is no way that they could have made the TATP on the plane). I will not, however, be afraid because it suits the people in power to make me afraid.

I was having lunch with my mom last weekend and she said, "This is *not* the country I grew up in." I think that says it all.

trollkiller: I can't get to the link you've posted (my company's firewall's fault), but I assume you're talking about the Chinese plot. The "plot" that had several people dumping flammable liquids into an airplane lav. Although that would have made a stinky flame, flammable liquids (which burn, rather than explode) would not have "blown up" the airplane. Not a credible threat. And note, too, that the passengers colluded, each bringing on a little bit of liquid. The 3-1-1 rule doesn't prevent this.

@3:02 pm anonymous TSO: When you say "threat" do you mean an actual threat (like a real working bomb, or a gun), or do you just mean "someone tried to sneak through a bottle of water, or didn't have lipstick in their magical 1-qt bag, or brought tweezers that were too big"? TSA's credibility on the whole issue of what constitutes a threat is pretty low, you understand.

I understand many of you are irritated with the processes and rules, and I can tell you as a TSO I dont entirely agree with all the ways things are done. However that being said I am paid to do a job as prescribed to me by my superiors, I do not power trip, I do not threaten, I do not harass. I understand that some TSO's are not completely up to par when it comes to customer service and can create frustration.

That being said I ask of you, please don't sit there and argue with me. the next time you have issue with a TSO ask for a supervisor, don't argue with the TSO it serves no purpose and if you get heated with the TSO it only serves to lose any credibility you had when the supervisor arrives.

If a you are in a situation where you think a TSO is mistaken on a policy or is about to do something that he shouldn't do (like opening a sterile package)immediately ask for a supervisor most of the time whether you believe or not a supervisor will resolve the situation. TSO's are only human beings trying to do a job we are not perfect and that expectation is unfair.

As for those of you who think private contractors would change anything

1) if TSA gets disbanded guess where I'm applying for a new job. so you will be dealing with alot of the same people in a different uniform. Only now when you say well they let it through in Newark, guess what, Newark was run by Pinkerton here in LAX we are run by Securitas and we do things different

2) If you think inconsistencies are bad now imagine when security is run buy a few hundred different contract security company

Chance sez:If a TSO discovers a device that is dangerous, but which due to its newness or novelty or through a mistake isn't on the prohibited list, common sense would say that this item should be stopped. On the one hand several posts are criticizing our apparent lack of flexibility in not being aware of the Mac and other new tech, and yet criticizing us for giving our TSOs the flexibility to deal with this item.

Chance - EoS blog Team.

Chance, I almost agree with you in that I have no problem with the TSOs stopping an unfamiliar device, but how long should the follow-up take?

How it should've played out:

TSO 1:"Hmmm...Something seems strange on this; I better refer it for an ETD scan just in case"

TSO 2:"I performed the ETD scan and there is no indication of explosives on the device. Sorry to have taken an extra 30 seconds while that process ran."

Total elapsed time: 2-3 minutes, figuring it'd take some time for TS1 to hail TSO 2 and get them over to the scene.

There is no excuse for anything to take longer than that. The TSOs don't need to know what every single computer model (or electronic device) looks like in an x-ray. But they do need to know enough to know that if something doesn't look correct you just follow through to the next step, without wasting peoples' time.

What if I pass through with a widget this weekend? Certainly you'll have never seen it before, since I just invented it. Should that stop me from flying with it? Absolutely not. The TSOs have the equipment available in the checkpoint area (or so we've been told) to efficiently and effectively determine if my widget is an explosive or not. Getting into whether it is dangerous or not is a whole different can of worms; an eight pound laptop is pretty dangerous when used to beat someone, as is a ballpoint pen when used to stab someone, but I digress. Swab it at the ETD and move the guy along. Anything else is just harassment.

It's true that there are non-insane TSA critics who reasonably argue that the TSA is doing a bad job, that there is no threat, etc. Alas, reasonability is no guarantee of rightness.

Let me put it to you this way: You get me an FBI agent to say there's no real threat and it's all just theater. The FBI is DHS's bureaucratic rival, after all, they have no dog in the TSA hunt. They should be happy to puncture that balloon. They have leaked damaging stuff on CIA, FEMA, and other agencies in the recent past.

But when it comes to TSA and the air threat, the FBI gives every appearance of standing shoulder to shoulder. If anything, they seem to hint that TSA goes a bit too easy.

I appreciate the more reasonable tone of the more reasonable TSA doubters. But they can still be wrong, and I suspect for the most part they are.

IN JAN 2006, I HAD TROUBLE WITH AN APPLE IBOOK, WHICH WAS WHITE. I WAS TOLD BT THE TSO THAT ALL COMPUTERS ARE BLACK. AFTER PLAYING WITH IT, AND PUTTING HIS FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER THE SCREEN, HE ALOWED IT THROUGH!

Honestly it doesn't surprise me that the TSO didn't recognize the MBA. They can't seem to recognize that expensive camera equipment is just that and to show even the slightest bit of respect towards one's property either. I've written up a blog post on a recent incident I had here. I know the title is definitely sensationalist, but I feel I am justified in my view, and that I am not alone either. Individual TSO's might think they are honestly doing good and helping us to be safer, but in reality, the TSA is doing as much if not harm than good.

So, to everyone who thinks that TSO's should NOT invesigate an item they aren't sure about such as this new Laptop... let's say someone gets a laptop on an aircraft that had an IED built into it? Who will you blame then? OF COURSE you would then blame TSO's for letting it get by... all with the same breath that you just condemned them in for taking some time to clear this unfamiliar Apple laptop.

"Let me put it to you this way: You get me an FBI agent to say there's no real threat and it's all just theater. The FBI is DHS's bureaucratic rival, after all, they have no dog in the TSA hunt. They should be happy to puncture that balloon. They have leaked damaging stuff on CIA, FEMA, and other agencies in the recent past.

But when it comes to TSA and the air threat, the FBI gives every appearance of standing shoulder to shoulder. If anything, they seem to hint that TSA goes a bit too easy."

I keep pretty close tabs on the news but perhaps I missed the items that would back up your assertions here. Could you please tell me where I might verify them for myself?

Anonymous said... trollkiller: I can't get to the link you've posted (my company's firewall's fault), but I assume you're talking about the Chinese plot. The "plot" that had several people dumping flammable liquids into an airplane lav. Although that would have made a stinky flame, flammable liquids (which burn, rather than explode) would not have "blown up" the airplane. Not a credible threat. And note, too, that the passengers colluded, each bringing on a little bit of liquid. The 3-1-1 rule doesn't prevent this.

Yes that is what the link was to. The article called it a "petro bomb". Now you point out that petro would have burned and not exploded.

I disagree on the mere fact that putting that petro in the proper container you could increase the pressure caused by the burning fuel to cause an explosion. Think of a car engine, a small amount of gasoline releases a tremendous amount of energy because of the "container" it is being burned in. Or think of a fire cracker, it makes a large bang from a very small amount of gun powder.

Setting that aside and assuming the worst they could do is make a fire. That would still be a disastrous situation. Commercial aircrafts have 3300-8400 kilograms of combustable material in the cabin.

I will grant you material in the cabins are fire retardant, but they only have to hold back the flames for 60 seconds to be considered as such.(same link as above)

With such a small amount of time needed before the retardant fails, and the fact that aluminum melts at only 1220 F, I would think that any fire could be very dangerous to the aircraft.

I would consider it a credible threat.

Now you point out that more than one passenger was in on this caper and the 3-1-1 would not have prevented it. I agree, but I will point out to you that the 3-1-1 would make it more difficult. The more people you have involved the easier it is to get tripped up.

The point I was making in my original post is, yes there is an honest concern about liquid and there has also been a recent attempt to use liquid to bring down a plane.

The TSA made a man miss his flight because the TSOs didn't know something was a laptop. Your list of excuses just shows how reactionary and antiquated the organization is. You make this pathetic excuse of how some TSOs have been doing this for more than six years and they're just doing their job. Well guess what, laptops have changed immensely in six years. Laptops evolve and change. It's pathetic that the TSA can't keep up with it.

It's also extremely laughable that you're asking for a MacBook Air x-ray now. A real organization would have investigated the matter before the notebook was released. Why don't you try working with the FCC? They get specs and schematics of laptops, mobile phones, PDAs, etc., long before the hardware is released. Then, perhaps, you wouldn't annoy the hell out of customers, make them miss flights, and provide a generally poor and useless service (at least the way you guys execute it).

Mr. Wilsonsmith, Have you ever served in any branch of the armed forces? Or, for that matter, been a public safety officer? My guess is no. The rules and regualtions that we have as TSO's, (I am a TSO) are put in place to PROTECT you and your fellow air travlers. Just like the rules of the road, these rules are ment to assist the officers in keeping you from harm.

Now some of the regulations are a bit archaic to say the least, but if placed with all the layers of security that we have (about 19 or 20) it makes sence.

Yes liquids can be missed when viewed on the x-ray, so can almost every prohibited item. Electronics are especially difficult to idientify. Visual inspection and explosive trace dection (ETD machines) are a better tool to determine if there is a prohibited item in the electronic item. Therefore, it takes longer to determine if there is a issue with something that a TSO has NEVER seen before.

Not every TSO has time or the desire to take upon them selves to go to Vegas for the consumer electronics show. I understand that the latest and greatest gadgets are there to drool over.

People have forgotten that people lost there lives on 9/11. I will never forget that day. I pray that the next time you travel with your loved ones that you remember we (TSO's) do try our best to protect the PLANES and TRAVELERS from all threats.

I have also taken the oath to protect and defend the U.S. and the consitition from threats both foriegn and DOMESTIC, TWICE. I am a NAVY VET and TSO.

"So, to everyone who thinks that TSO's should NOT invesigate an item they aren't sure about such as this new Laptop... let's say someone gets a laptop on an aircraft that had an IED built into it? Who will you blame then? OF COURSE you would then blame TSO's for letting it get by... "

Well there probably would be a Congressional inquiry.

So, is it about who gets the blame?What happened to protecting the innocent members of the traveling public?

Same for the feeding tube? Put someone else's life at risk, because you don't have the proper training, then blame the general public because you don't recognize a sterile packaged medical device?

The Mac Air should have been swabbed for explosives residue, perhaps function checked, and the owner sent on his way in a couple of minutes.

THIS is really about the top down corporate culture of the TSA. How and what TSA trains, and a "them or us" mentality that lacks proper boundaries, combine to make post crisis knee-jerk finger pointing a way of life.

So, to everyone who thinks that TSO's should NOT invesigate an item they aren't sure about such as this new Laptop... let's say someone gets a laptop on an aircraft that had an IED built into it? Who will you blame then? OF COURSE you would then blame TSO's

If the laptop had an IED in it, it would fail the explosives trace test (ETD). That's what ETD is for.

There's no indication TSA even did an ETD test on this guy's laptop, which if they did not, is yet another indication of total lack of common sense. Instead, they detained him so long discussing it and "doing their job" that he MISSED HIS FLIGHT.

Yet not a single TSA person has suggested the passenger is owed an apology. And yet somehow they deny power-tripping, bullying, and harassing passengers.

Excellent. So get me an FBI agent who says there's no real threat and it's all just theater.

"Could you please tell me where I might verify them for myself?"

First get me that agent. Homework later.

Some anonymous said: "The TSA made a man miss his flight because the TSOs didn't know something was a laptop."

If you read his blog entry, he was in the screening line as his flight was boarding. You don't need a radical new laptop to miss your flight under those circumstances. The slightest delay from a passenger in front of you will do it.

I was in line the other day and the gal in front of me was wearing a (presumably fashionable) blouse that was literally full of 1-inch holes, and each hole had a metal grommet. Naturally the detector went off like a Christmas tree. File under "What were they thinking?" and crossfile under "WERE they thinking??" The TSO's were very polite but obviously she was waved over to the curtained female search booth. I hope it was a Maidenform day. I didn't lose much time, but if I had been squeezing the clock it might have made the difference. I don't squeeze the clock.

I'm NOT AT ALL a fan of the TSA. It's so funny they think they can "keep us safe" while every single one of their regulations are a knee-jerk-bush-admin response to something that already happened.

And PLEASE stop this stupid "liquids and gels" ban. If I can bring on 3 oz, what's to stop my 5 friends from bringing on 3 oz with them, and then before you know it, we've got 15 oz of something. It's ridiculous. If you can't tell a bottle of water from something dangerous, you have no business in the security business!

(Side note: when I DID pack my cologne in my checked baggage, it was stolen. I called the TSA and they said, "File a form." If the TSA can't stop people from taking things OUT of my bag, how can they stop people from putting things IN my bag???)

Additionally, when traveling with my father (he has MS), he was forced to take of his shoes by balancing in place. He can't bend over, he can't balance, and there was no chair for him to sit in. The woman who was "security" was a horrid woman who embarrassed him in front of a line of passengers. It was completely the worst experience.

And that's the face of TSA. Knee-jerk reactions from a civil-liberties-robbing republican administration.

But trollkiller, the important thing to realize is that 3-1-1 does NOTHING to prevent that Chinese scenario, which boiled down to "let's set a fire on a plane."

Unless lighters, steel, flint, matches, wire, batteries, magnesium starters, capacitors, convex lenses, and a couple common chemicals which I won't name here are banned, then it will always be possible to create a flame on an airplane. Now I need something to burn. Since I'm allowed clothing, paper, both of which can be impregnated with stuff to "improve" their burning (only some of which would be detectable by swabs or puffers, neither of which are universally used at checkpoints), we can safely say that the determined malcontent will ALWAYS be able to set a fire on an aircraft.

Since all the TSA cares about are that your wee bottles are packed into a ziplock (in addition to the extra liquid I can scam aboard inside contact lens solution containers and medication), and almost never pay attention to the actual contents (nor do they have the technology to conclusively determine the actual contents), I can also carry on a reasonable (about a quart) volume of flammable liquid too. In fact, I'm pretty sure that alcohol based products aren't prohibited, and that burns rather nicely. If you've ever taken a chemistry course, you can think of lots of other nasty stuff that burns nicely and doesn't have much of an odor.

The point I'm making is that the 3-1-1 rule is utterly stupid (unless you're the guy selling the $4 bottles of water behind security, in which case you think it's grand). It's been demonstrated time and time again that there's no explosive liquid you can whip up aboard the plane, and I've just pointed out that if all I want to do is set a fire, there's loads of ways to do that without benefit of liquid.

People have forgotten that people lost there lives on 9/11. I will never forget that day. I pray that the next time you travel with your loved ones that you remember we (TSO's) do try our best to protect the PLANES and TRAVELERS from all threats.********************************

No, we haven't (personally, I was sitting on a plane waiting to take off @ BOS, so it's definately a memorable event!), however, many of us recognize that '9/11' happened because 4 pilots opened the doors to their cockpits & turned over control of their airplanes to the hijackers. The pilots followed their companies policies, but it doesn't change the fact that had those 4 doors remained closed & locked (as they are now w/NO thanks to anything or anyone @ the TSA, btw), the Twin Towers would likely still be standing. The current policy of keeping the doors locked & reinforced is what will prevent another '9/11', regardless of how many layers the TSA wants to bury the traveling public under.

If you want to truly protect me & my fellow travelers, start paying attention to the cargo that is under my feet in the belly of every commercial airliner in flight. The TSA is only how many years behind is complying w/that federal requirement?

If you want to complain, at least complain about the right things, like opening a sterile feeding tube, destroying a man's camera bag and having no respect for his personal property, refusing a passport as a valid ID, throwing out medication that does not fit the 3-1-1 rule because it does not have a pharmacy label on it, treating people like dirt, or the fact that TSOs do not have whistle blower protection.

Those are the things that need to be complained about.

This man missed his flight because he did not give enough time to get through security. The 5-10 minute delay should not have been enough to make him miss his flight, if he was there on time. I have NO sympathy for someone that can not be there on time. The TSOs did the right thing by double checking a device they were unfamiliar with.

I am no TSA fanboy but come on, fair is fair. The TSOs did it right for once. Let them have this small victory

Well, between the fact that you could not be bothered to get my name right -- winstonsmith -- and the misspellings and misused words in your post, I have to suggest that your attention to detail makes me feel a whole lot safer with you and people like you on the job.

Have you ever served in any branch of the armed forces? Or, for that matter, been a public safety officer? My guess is no.

Whether or not I have personally served in the military or been a public service officer of any kind is not at issue here and I refuse to answer those kinds of personal questions on those grounds. I am an American citizen and am entitled to my rights as an American citizen, among which are the rights to free speech and dissent, to equal treatment under the law, and to be free of unreasonable harassment by my government. Reasonable minds can differ as to what constitutes unreasonable harrassment and I'd be happy to engage in such a debate in an appropriate forum, which this is not.

The rules and regualtions that we have as TSO's, (I am a TSO) are put in place to PROTECT you and your fellow air travlers. Just like the rules of the road, these rules are ment to assist the officers in keeping you from harm.

Now some of the regulations are a bit archaic to say the least, but if placed with all the layers of security that we have (about 19 or 20) it makes sence.

Yes liquids can be missed when viewed on the x-ray, so can almost every prohibited item. Electronics are especially difficult to idientify. Visual inspection and explosive trace dection (ETD machines) are a better tool to determine if there is a prohibited item in the electronic item. Therefore, it takes longer to determine if there is a issue with something that a TSO has NEVER seen before.

So Mr TSO, what are you telling me? Don't blame me if I miss something? My job is hard? I have tools to do my job? You are not making a great deal of sense here. The fact that TSA lets prohibited items through the checkpoints is well documented in GAO reports and by the TSA itself. The screeners we had before the TSA came on board were just as good at missing stuff and a whole lot less disagreeable to deal with than what we have now. TSA has not been able to show the public that it has been the reason or even a principal contributor to the reason that any attack on any aircraft has been foiled. Certain terrorist plots have been uncovered to be sure, but it has not been because of anything TSA has done or not done, but because of things that other agencies have done.

Not every TSO has time or the desire to take upon them selves to go to Vegas for the consumer electronics show. I understand that the latest and greatest gadgets are there to drool over.

Why yes they are and they are cool. No one suggested that the TSOs need to educate themselves on the latest and greatest. Had you been paying attention to the many comments in the blog you would see that people have been pointing most of the spears and arrows at TSA's (mis)management and how they failed to get information to the screeners in a timely fashion. It is the TSA's responsibility to be aware of what it is likely to see coming through the checkpoints. Ignorance is not an excuse. Failure of your management to educate is not an excuse. Period.

People have forgotten that people lost there lives on 9/11. I will never forget that day. I pray that the next time you travel with your loved ones that you remember we (TSO's) do try our best to protect the PLANES and TRAVELERS from all threats.

You might be surprised to learn, that despite what may appear to be a great deal of angry and snarky appearing rhetoric on my part, I recognize that TSOs are people doing a job, just as I do my job every day. I recognize that you as TSOs take your jobs very seriously. My issue is not with you as people (unless you try to insult me personally of course and then all bets are off). My issue is with the government agency for which you work and the amount of power it has been granted under arguably questionable legal authority. I don't see the TSA as doing the job of keeping the skies any safer than they were pre 9/11 but I see it doing what it does at an enormous cost in terms of dollars and surrendered individual liberties. When you or any TSA official can produce some kind of documentation from an independent non-Administration based or funded source that shows me that I'm materially safer because of what they do than I was before 9/11, I'll immediately turn around and support the agency with the same passion that I currently oppose it.

Excellent. So get me an FBI agent who says there's no real threat and it's all just theater.

"Could you please tell me where I might verify them for myself?"

First get me that agent. Homework later.

Since I made no assertion that the FBI said there was no threat, I need produce no proof. You, on the other hand were making an assertion that the FBI is somehow in competition with DHS as I recall and I would simply like to see the documentation on that. I am interested in these things and if you would like to bring me around to your way of thinking showing me where you got this from would go a long way in helping me get there. If you can't or won't, then I'll take your statement for the simple unsubstantiated assertion that it appears to be, and move on from there.

Originally posted by trollkiller:This man missed his flight because he did not give enough time to get through security. The 5-10 minute delay should not have been enough to make him miss his flight, if he was there on time. I have NO sympathy for someone that can not be there on time. The TSOs did the right thing by double checking a device they were unfamiliar with.

I am no TSA fanboy but come on, fair is fair. The TSOs did it right for once. Let them have this small victory.

Where did you see that he was detained for only 5-10 minutes?

I'd like an answer to that question. So far all we know is that his plane was boarding while he was being detained. The blog didn't say that the was boarding when he started the screening process. Maybe it was; maybe not.

And even if it was boarding, most airlines start boarding 30-35 minutes prior to departure, and close the door 10-15 minutes prior to departure. 15-20 minutes should be more than enough to clear the screening process from x-ray to finish for anyone who is not being arrested for carrying a weapon or explosive.

If he was detained 5-10 minutes or less, I'll cut TSA some slack here. Otherwise, I maintain that they made him miss his flight and owe him an apology and compensation. From the stories I've heard about escalations at TSA checkpoints, I suspect it was more than 5-10 minutes.

A couple of TSOs on here have objected to the concept that they ought to know what a MBA looks like, because it isn't realistic for them to be up on all the latest consumer gadgets.

I think this misses the point. Before the MBA was launched, you simply could not watch TV without running across an ad for one. Likewise for the paper, and internet, which also carried numerous reviews of the devices.

The point is that if you're so completely culturally unaware that you don't realize that a major consumer electronics company has released a popular, fairly radically new device, should you really be a TSO? How are you supposed to go about detecting suspicious activity if you're clueless about modern culture?

Anonymous said:"I am by no means a proponent of the TSA. But given these choices:

Flight 1 - Little or no screening.Flight 2 - Current level of screening.

Which one will you prefer to get on?"

Personally, I'll take #1. I have zero faith in the "security theater" provided by TSA to placate the rubes.

At least with #1 I'd be able to bring a weapon to defend myself and maybe defeat a hijack attempt.

Call me all the names you'd like, but I personally think that if I can pass a background check, and pass the Air Marshal's marksmanship test, as a private citizen I should be allowed to carry a firearm on a commercdial flight.

If you want to complain, at least complain about the right things, like opening a sterile feeding tube, destroying a man's camera bag and having no respect for his personal property, refusing a passport as a valid ID, throwing out medication that does not fit the 3-1-1 rule because it does not have a pharmacy label on it, treating people like dirt, or the fact that TSOs do not have whistle blower protection.

Those are the things that need to be complained about."

I'll second that....

Could we have an update soon on what is being done to insure the safety and wellbeing of the disabled while going through security? Has a formal apology been made to James Hoyne?

Good afternoon and thanks for taking the time to post all of your comments!!!

JohnF said... If Apple does agree to loan you an MBA, make sure they send one with an SSD, not a hard drive, as that is liable to draw attention on an xray.

Still working on getting a MacBook Air…Thanks for the tip, John!

Anonymous said... The criticism was not of a lack of flexibility but, rather a lack of awareness of a product that is 1) produced by a major company, 2) has been the subject of extensive advertising, and is 3) aimed directly at the frequent flyer market. It takes no great leap of imagination to realize that the Macbook Air will almost certainly become a common item carried by the traveling public. .

Ask anybody in marketing and they will tell you it is impossible to reach everybody. You can run television commercials and whole page adds in every newspaper in the world and still not reach everybody. We do our very best to identify potential fires and snuff them out. Hence this blog…

Eva said... I don't know. If I was that guy, and missed my flight because a TSO didn't know a laptop when they saw one... I'd be pretty aggravated.

I think there is some confusion here. There is a huge difference in looking at a laptop while it’s in the X-ray and when it’s out on a table or on the rollers. The flags went up due to what was seen on the X-ray image.

winstonsmith said... Effectively Mr. Anonymous, the TSO was confronted with something that was clearly not a bomb. It was clearly not a knife. It was clearly not an explosive. It was clearly not on the prohibited items list.

Clearly it looked like something out of the norm or we wouldn’t be discussing this right now. Post screening process, you’re spot on. Pre screening process, you’re off base.

Chance said... As I'm not a TSO, perhaps I'm speaking out of turn, but while we definitely should trust our fellow workers, I would personally not want to be the guy that let something through that shouldn't have, and my only defense being "Well, Bob said it was cool". Yes, the Mac isn't a knife, bomb, or gun, but better safe than sorry.

Why did you have to drag my name into this? Couldn’t you have used another common name other than Bob, like say…Christopher?

Andy Granger said... I agree with johnf, but I would expand on his post: I would recommend that you have Apple send TWO MacBook Air units, one with the standard hard drive, and one with the solid state drive. This is so that TSOs can know that the unit is not a threat when they see one coming through the XRay machine, look at the physical location where the hard drive is in the laptop, and see "something else" besides the telltale disc-and-arm-in-a-rectangle configuration of the standard drive

Once again, thanks for the tip!

Andy Granger said... While I think it's somewhat comical (and if it happened to me, unspeakably frustrating) that this poor gentleman was stopped because of his MacBook Air, I can imagine that, on an XRay, a solid state drive might look something like packed explosives

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Give the man a cigar. Seriously… I can’t go into specifics of course, but you’re on the right track.

JoelG said... Even if the TSO was "admiring" the new laptop - I think that's a poor excuse for stopping a patron. Especially when he ends up missing his flight. Shouldn't TSOs be professional enough to wait and "admire" the MacBook Air at their local Apple Store during their off-day? It'd make more sense than the officer gawking at it, calling his superior over to see it and eventually making the patron miss his flight

Joe, I’m afraid you took me too literally. I guess this was another one of my failed attempts at light humor.

A free man said... Gee Bob, way to spin the story to make it look like TSA agents were just 'paying extra special attention' rather than being complete dimwits who couldn't figure out what the heck a laptop is

This is a no spin zone. I speak only the truth.

mtnygard said... It was my experience and blog post that got all this attention recently.

One of my purposes in writing this piece was to point out something I thought was interesting: namely that the x-ray screeners are trained to look for certain things--"landmarks", if you will--in the images they review.

Before last week, I had never given a moment's thought to the training or procedures behind the ubiquitous screening. Like many people, I supposed that they were just looking for obvious problems: suspicious outlines, coils of wires, etc.

I found it interesting that there might be a similar checklist of things that should be present: battery, hard drive, optical drive, and so on. I don't think most people would realize that.

Some people have interpreted me as variously "blasting", "villifying",or "insulting" the TSA agents in question. This was not my intention. It appears to come mainly from people reacting to second-hand information, instead of reading the original post

Mr. Nygard. I appreciate you taking the time to post on our blog. I am sincerely sorry you missed your flight that day. I hope to see more comments from you in the future.

Anonymous said... TSA should stop all such devices from going through security. One of them might be "Mac the knife

I’m glad you beat me to this because I was ready and willing to post it!

Anonymous said... This post should embarrass the TSA. Not only couldn't they figure out that a "mystery device" with a 13" screen, apple logo and keyboard was a computer. They now make a post kissing the butt of a corporation and praising their work.

I’m proud of the way this was handled. An anomaly was presented and cleared. Job well done… And before somebody says I’m proud Mr. Nygard missed his flight, please don’t twist my words.

Anonymous said... TSO's don't have net access? Why not make a quick visit to www.macbookair.com and have a look?

Good suggestion, but at the time the officers were concerned, the item was in the X-ray and the officers had no clue what they were looking at or what brand it was.

In his little write up, Anonymous said... Bob, you fail to point out in your little write-up that the guy MISSED HIS FLIGHT because the "diligent" and overzealous TSOs detained him for so long

He may have very well been delayed several minutes due to the extra screening, but I don’t recall him saying how early he arrived or how long he was delayed. If I remember correctly, he blamed Mr. Jobs. 

Anonymous said...By the way Bob, see if Apple will let you keep the comp., tell them you are a product tester

I’m glad you mentioned this, because we do just that. We have briefings sent to the workforce outlining new items that might cause problems at airports. It would make even more sense if the major manufacturers worked with the TSA to provide x-ray images etc. of new items. It would be voluntary of course, but it could avoid future problems such as this one.

hawthorn said... On further reflection, it does seem as though it would be worth a laptop manufacturer's time to make an X-Ray image of each new laptop using a TSA type scanner, and to provide that to your office for reference and training - or to lend you units so you can do it yourselves. Does TSA have a point of contact for this? If not, you might want to create one and send it around to Lenovo, Dell etc, and also send someone to the trade shows to spread the word

Ha! I just said the very same thing! I would use the old “great minds” comment, but you might want to be worried about your thoughts resembling mine.

Anonymous said... IN JAN 2006, I HAD TROUBLE WITH AN APPLE IBOOK, WHICH WAS WHITE. I WAS TOLD BT THE TSO THAT ALL COMPUTERS ARE BLACK. AFTER PLAYING WITH IT, AND PUTTING HIS FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER THE SCREEN, HE ALOWED IT THROUGH

Wow. Computers of all colors are brought through our checkpoints daily. What a strange situation…

Anonymous said... Whatever happened to the explosives swab test? I thought that you could detect trace amounts of explosives with this test

I imagine this was eventually done, but I have no way of knowing since it wasn’t mentioned in Mr. Nygard’s article.

"I’m glad you mentioned this, because we do just that. We have briefings sent to the workforce outlining new items that might cause problems at airports. It would make even more sense if the major manufacturers worked with the TSA to provide x-ray images etc. of new items. It would be voluntary of course, but it could avoid future problems such as this one.""

Great to know you are getting out technology briefings. Maybe you could post on Flyer Talk and see if you can get some support for image submissions over there.

"Ha! I just said the very same thing! I would use the old “great minds” comment, but you might want to be worried about your thoughts resembling mine."

Just to make sure you know the whole quote:"Great minds think alike, simple minds seldom differ."

I mostly find the TSA engages in creating the illusion of security, but not security itself. I do not blame the TSA for this; I blame the current administration which is far more focused on how things appear, rather than how they actually are.

The job of airport security is complex and will require much more investment and manpower than we have currently committed.

I think the title of this post alone shows TSA still doesn't get it. This isn't an issue specific to the MacBook Air, but specific to solid state drives. The original blog post quotes a TSO saying "There's no drive,...It has a couple of lines where the drive should be" So, as another post points out, TSOs are trained to look for a traditional drive's spindle and platters. It sounds like now they're trained to look for the hard drive unless it's one of these whisper-thin silvery things with an apple on it. As soon as the cost comes down, SSDs should be the norm in all laptops.

...If he was detained 5-10 minutes or less, I'll cut TSA some slack here. Otherwise, I maintain that they made him miss his flight and owe him an apology and compensation. From the stories I've heard about escalations at TSA checkpoints, I suspect it was more than 5-10 minutes.

Just to be clear the 5-10 minute delay I am speaking of is just the time after the x-ray. I am not counting the time he stood in line before the x-ray.

My comments will be in regular type, quotes from the blog will be in italics

Only... today, something is different. Instead of my bags trundling through the x-ray machine, she stops the belt. Calls over another agent, a palaver. Another agent flocks to the screen. A gabble, a conference, some consternation.

How long do you think they conferenced at the x-ray machine? 1 minute, 2 minutes? Remember while the TSOs are debating the line is backing up.

They pull my laptop, my new laptop making its first trip with me, out of the flow of bags. One takes me aside to a partitioned cubicle. Another of the endless supply of TSA agents takes the rest of my bags to a different cubicle. No yellow brick road here, just a pair of yellow painted feet on the floor, and my flight is boarding. I am made to understand that I should stand and wait. My laptop is on the table in front of me, just beyond reach, like I am waiting to collect my personal effects after being paroled.

How long do you think it took for them to walk over to the cubicle? Maybe a minute. Okay now we are up to 3 minutes.

I'm standing, watching my laptop on the table, listening to security clucking just behind me. "There's no drive," one says. "And no ports on the back. It has a couple of lines where the drive should be," she continues.

Unless there was a huge conversation going on behind him that he does not mention, the above exchange should not have taken more than a minute.Now we are up to 4 minutes.

A younger agent, joins the crew... The new arrival looks at the printouts from x-ray, looks at my laptop sitting small and alone. He tells the others that it is a real laptop, not a "device". That it has a solid-state drive instead of a hard disc. They don't know what he means. He tries again, "Instead of a spinning disc, it keeps everything in flash memory." Still no good. "Like the memory card in a digital camera." He points to the x-ray, "Here. That's what it uses instead of a hard drive."

Reading the above exchange I can't see it taking more than 2 minutes for the younger agent to explain flash memory. Okay 6 minutes now.

He requires me to open the "device" and run a program. I do, and despite his inclination, the lead agent decides to release me and my troublesome laptop. My flight is long gone now, so I head for the service center to get rebooked.

How long does it take a new Macbook to boot? 2 minutes maybe? Launch a program, then shut it down. Two more minutes?

So about 10 minutes from x-ray to on his way. Heck lets be generous and say 15 minutes. (maybe one of the TSOs walked slow)

Even taking 15 minutes, going from boarding to long gone does not add up. He missed his plane by such a wide margin he did not even bother going to the gate to see if it had left. He went straight to the service center to rebook.

Now take what you know of human behavior. When telling a story people will almost always color it to their favor. They will tell you how mean the cop was when they were pulled over but they forget to tell you they asked the cop why he was not busting real criminals. Not exactly a lie but not exactly the truth either.

Read his blog again but this time read it as if you were a parent trying to find out who broke the vase.

He takes great pains to let us know he is a professional traveler. Has to check his Blackberry to know what city he is in, parks on the same level every time so he only has to remember one location. (I do the same at Wal~Mart) Checks in at the less-used kiosks in the transit level and even checks his luggage so he does not have to fight the overhead bins. This guy is no tourist, he is a pro.

Notice he conveniently left out how much time he left himself to get through security.

He tells us by the time he reaches the cubicle the flight is boarding. Yet he “forgets” to tell us how long BEFORE he reached the cubicle the flight was boarding. This leaves the impression they had just started boarding. Even if it took 15 minutes to explain what a Macbook is, that would still have left him 5 minutes to make his flight. But according to him, the flight was long gone by the time they finished.

The fact he leaves out just how long they delayed him tells me it was for a very short and reasonable time. Stating the TSOs only held him up for 10 minutes and he missed his flight would not make for a very good story.

I think if the traveler had been delayed for any significant amount of time, he would have said so. The way he describes it, it could have been 2 -3 minutes of delay.

The idea that TSOs would look for things missing seems very obvious. Laptops are packed so tight, getting something foreign inside would require something be removed. That's why you sometimes have to turn the laptop on. If i works, it's all there...

Also, if your a mac fan, you probably read about the Air 5-10 times, visited the apple store to drool over one, and maybe bragged to your PC friends at the water cooler. But you have to realize other people are not mac fans, and don't follow the product line like it's a religion. Currently maybe .001% of laptops TSOs might see day to day have no hard drive. Expecting each one to recognize it first time out is a little unrealistic.

I was on a recent trip to the island Of Lanai Hawaii. The Airport had at least 12 TSA agents working in the late morning. Our plane only had nine passengers. This airport only has about four flights a day from Honolulu and each small prop plane can only carry about 25 passengers max. Why so many TSA agents for this little airport, when 3-4 would be plenty? What waste of tax payers money. Also just about every agent was at least 65 years old or older. What happens if areal problem accurs?

Also, most of the TSA agents I have met, have no common sense what's so ever. I had a small 1.5" novelty cresent wrench which was part of a key chain. The agent decided it was a weapon or a real tool and it was taken away. NO common sense or poor training. I believe the job goes to their head and everything else goes out the window. -Larry Van Der Kolk

A lot of the commentators are pretty clear cut on their statements towards the TSA.

The fact that we have people working with technology to protect our airlines that are unable to identify certain functions of new technology like the MacBook Air, is fairly contradictory. Additionally, a lot of the insulting, disgusting and frustrating stories I've heard of the TSA - the Grandma's Underwire Bra story, the multiple failures to catch fake explosives, and so on.

Seriously, out of all these problems, the TSA picks something that fits in a Manila envelope to delay someone over? Any thinner and it'd probably be construed as some mega-razor.

Which is ridiculous. The worst you could expect from something the size of a Macbook Air would be information technology transport violations such as data smuggling - and the TSA are not the Customs, so that's not in their jurisdiction.

Honestly, liquid explosives? Every decent man who has studied explosives can tell you that making a bomb while in the air is impossible - anything the size of a toothpaste tube needs to be compressed and ignited properly in order to produce a dangerous explosive that could potentially down an aircraft. Otherwise it'll just produce a lot of smoke and force an emergency landing.

The only validity the TSA has towards the explosives argument is the Shoe Bomber case - there are indeed dangerous explosive compounds that can be produced beforehand, designed to work with a very simple, crude ignitor as illustrated in the Richard Reid case. The biggest downside is that such explosive compounds are very, very unstable and are likely to detonate before even reaching their target. If Richard Reid had walked just a wee bit "harder" on his feet in those bomb-packed shoes, he'd be kissing his ass goodbye well before he boarded that plane.

On the upside, those are very, very easy to catch - unless our addle-brained inspectors have grown too accustomed to function without their common sense - I wouldn't be worried about something as insignificant as a MacBook Air.

Fortunately, to actually achieve "blowing up" an airliner, anything short of the equivalent to a fragmentation grenade isn't enough. You could even safely detonate flashbangs inside a fully pressurized aircraft with no repercussions.

Which leads me to this conclusion: TSA is the ill-achieved result of fear mongering by the GOP-led government and Bush Administration. There were never any clear-cut "common sense" mannerisms when the TSA and DHS was established, designed to completely boggle the mind to the point of irrationality equivalent to the insurgency using women with mental disabilities to carry out their bombings.

It's been talked about forever, but noone ever has progressed my idea (below). To avoid these issues, and speed up the checkpoint lines, why doesn't the TSA have a Frequent Flyer clearance program for business flyers (who often carry many technology related gizmos and the "latest tech gear")so we could be diverted and expedited through with minimal checks based upon our previous "government clearance". As a frequent flyer, I would gladly pay a fee for a TSA "air travel clearance license" and provide a biometric such a finger print for verification at a kiosk to avoid the long lines and intrusive checks. You should look into this. It might improve the service and your rating with passengers. I go through this fairly frequently and it's really annoying to be behind someone who does'nt know "the drill" and doesn't empty the pockets, or leaves the laptop in the bag.

Actually, it's all very simple.The screener using the imaging device has a mental database of what things look like on the inside. If he or she has not seen an object on the outside, they are not likely to recognize it in an xray image. This is one reason the lines were slower after the TSA took over. They just didn't have a mental inventory of the items that people carry until they had been trained on the job. It's impossible to know what everything looks like, but it is possible to look at suspicious items.

Anonymous said... IN JAN 2006, I "HAD TROUBLE WITH AN APPLE IBOOK, WHICH WAS WHITE. I WAS TOLD BT THE TSO THAT ALL COMPUTERS ARE BLACK. AFTER PLAYING WITH IT, AND PUTTING HIS FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER THE SCREEN, HE ALOWED IT THROUGH

Wow. Computers of all colors are brought through our checkpoints daily. What a strange situation…"

Bob, you need to spend more time at the screening station. Business travellers tend to use PCs and they only come in black. To my knowledge Apple is the only company that consistently manufacturers computers in colors other than gray and black. Think I'm making it up, walk around your office and see what color peoples computers are.

Anonymous said... Bob, you need to spend more time at the screening station. Business travellers tend to use PCs and they only come in black. To my knowledge Apple is the only company that consistently manufacturers computers in colors other than gray and black. Think I'm making it up, walk around your office and see what color peoples computers are.

I've spent plenty of time at TSA checkpoints. I also watch TV and read magazines enough to know that color PC notebooks can be found:

Unfortunately for us taxpayers, a false positive is a SECURITY FAILURE. You can spin it any way you want; the fact remains the same. Those of us who work in real security (the type that, you know, actually works instead of providing a show), know better.

Just keep on burning our tax dollars for no real reason, though.

Oh, and "T>hanks for S>aving A>merica," even if you didn't, wouldn't, and couldn't.

Get a grip stop blaming your insecurities on someone else. I do hope one day the job goes back to the airline just to see the faces of those who complain made happy again. Then popped when something bad happen again.

Then What your going to say.

Well least we had excellent customer service and a speedy entry.

Who needs security? You'll see.Hopefully the next time one is put in place they do rel security. Let law enforcement take over. That ought to be good. Can't wait to laugh at everyone on LEO BLOG then.

Neil said... An interesting post on the Wired How-to Wiki, entitled, Fly through Airport Security. It illustrates how simple (and quick) you can get through the security checkpoint if you pay attention to certain things.

Neil TSA Blog Team

March 14, 2008 5:10 PM**********************************The interesting part is that this piece comes from THE BLOG TEAM! LOL, too bad the general public can't do their own research on how to get through security hassle free. You know if more passengers just went online and did their own research, it would make thier trip and TSO's jobs so much easier! Thanks Neil. Oh and by the way, stop complaining about your tax dollars, they're my tax dollars too, and I'm proud to be spending them on a security program that actually IS working whether you like it or not.

Anonymous said... "It would be nice for the TSO's to get a heads up on things like this and know what to look for."

Oh hey, there's a new kind of shampoo out. Let's get all the TSO's together and brief them on that.

Oh, and I saw some cool shoes at the mall today, let's brief the TSO's on that too.

Come on. If TSO's had that much extra time to be briefed on every single new electronic item that came out, TSO's would never have time to do screening. They'd be sitting in a classroom their entire shift.

Regardless of what this blog says to try to help, people are going to cut it down. I'm not really seeing any viable suggestions from people commenting on these blogs. I'm glad that soldiers like me are still fighting in Iraq so you morons have the time/freedom/opportunity to post hateful and idiotic messages to a government branch that's trying to help you. I say that if you guys want it that way, cut off all the security at Laguardia, O'Hare, LAX, Seattle, and DFW for a week and see what crazy crap ends up on planes.

I say more power to the TSO's that are alert enough to check out something different so they know in the future what said product is supposed to look like.

March 11, 2008 6:14 PM

Thank you for YOUR service to OUR country, and thank you for your support.

I'm glad that soldiers like me are still fighting in Iraq so you morons have the time/freedom/opportunity to post hateful and idiotic messages to a government branch that's trying to help you.

Does your commander know that you post comments like this? FYI I served as well during the 70's. We had a conflict going on then as now.

I say that if you guys want it that way, cut off all the security at Laguardia, O'Hare, LAX, Seattle, and DFW for a week and see what crazy crap ends up on planes.

This is what we want from TSA:

Treat us like humansRespect our property and personsBe consistent in what is allowed and what is disallowed from airport to airport.Shut down the endless droning of the PA system, especially on the concourse.Act professional. Go on break then at least eat and drink outside the screening area.Knock off the horseplay

The above items daily get trampled in the name of security. Take care of the first three items and the complaints will go away.

Treat us like humans If some passengers acted like humans then all passengers would be treated as such.Respect our property and persons If there is a question about respect, it should be addressed on the spot, not on this forum.Be consistent in what is allowed and what is disallowed from airport to airport. This one really pisses me off. Consistency is an issue that should not even be in question. The prohib list is clearly printed on the web site! www.tsa.gov go there, get the information you need and you won't have problems. Follow the rules that have been in place from day one and you won't have an issue. Stop your complaining and start acted like you want to be treated and you won't have a problem.

Take care of that and the rest will fall into place.Shut down the endless droning of the PA system, especially on the concourse.Act professional. Go on break then at least eat and drink outside the screening area.Knock off the horseplay

The above items daily get trampled in the name of security. Take care of the first three items and the complaints will go away.

Treat us like humansIf some passengers acted like humans then all passengers would be treated as such.

Likewise, stop screeching/bellowing/doing poor impersonations of R. Lee Emery and you might get treated the way you want to be treated. The frequent travelers (I'm one of them) play by the rules and see nothing but inconsistancies, rudeness, general confusion (on the part of TSA inspectors), rage (on the part of TSA inspectors), and a general wanna-be cop (which you fortunately aren't).

Respect our property and personsIf there is a question about respect, it should be addressed on the spot, not on this forum.

We find out about how our property has been treated after the fact. Dumping the contents of my tool chest back into the tool chest show me that that the inspector (OKC) didn't care about properly repacking the toolchest. Walking around with someone's toothbrush and other stuff (OKC) isn't professional. Personally I would throw away a toothbrush that TSA 'inspected' by hand rather than use it again.

Be consistent in what is allowed and what is disallowed from airport to airport.This one really pisses me off. Consistency is an issue that should not even be in question. The prohib list is clearly printed on the web site! www.tsa.gov go there, get the information you need and you won't have problems.

I go to the TSA website and read what is allowed 3oz or 100ml (3.4oz)depending on where you read it. I read nothing that states the containers have to be labled. Don't lable a containter even if it is under 3oz and it gets confiscated. Show me where it says you must have a label on the container, please. I see where people have had OTC medications removed from carry ons while the TSA website says that reasonable (whatever that is) amounts are allowable. I've seen medications removed for little or no reason other than the label fell off. Are you now deciding on which medications people are to take and in what dosages? That sounds like you're practicing medicine without a license.

Follow the rules that have been in place from day one and you won't have an issue. Stop your complaining and start acted like you want to be treated and you won't have a problem.

I do follow the rules. I've had my carryon torn apart in a feeble attempt at security (no liquids at all), had my tool chest have the locks cut off after being hand checked (Newark), given grief for asking that my tool chest be relocked, had a gate screener (2002) insist on removing a strip of medical tape covering a fresh surgical incision 12 inches long because the numerous staples set off the hand wand. Yes, I have lots to be angry about and you, are part of the problem, not a solution.

You hurt my brain. The Govt. is inefficient and does things that boggles the mind, but I don't think they tax their own agency.

Maybe you meant that employees of the TSA are taxed like every other working stiff in this country.

I take it by the tone of your post you or someone you love works as a TSO.

When TSA TSOs FAIL 60+% of the time to detect bomb parts and hidden weapons while a private firm only failed 20% of the time, you can't take the attitude of "see how bad it will be when we are gone".

If LEOs did take over the screening they may have more understanding of Constitutional law and proper searches and seizures. They will understand that they are not exempt from the Constitution. They will also be more accountable due to the fact they can't use the "good faith" excuse when they go beyond the Constitutional scope of their search.

As a TSO or someone that loves a TSO, I would think that you would be at the front of the line screaming for change. I know you too want to be rid of bad TSOs and corrupt managers. I know you too want real security to keep you or your TSO safe.

Keep in mind while you are reading this blog, the people are not complaining about the good TSOs, they are complaining about the bad TSOs and the failings of the organization. If you or your loved one is one of the good TSOs, don't worry we are not talking about you.

I would also like to encourage the good TSOs and other good TSA employees to hang in there. Whether they intended to or not, by creating this blog the TSA created an avenue to hold management's feet to the fire.

With your help exposing what is wrong within the TSA and the public demand for answers and change, you can shape the TSA into an organization you and the American people can be proud of.

Anonymous said... Treat us like humansIf some passengers acted like humans then all passengers would be treated as such.

Likewise, stop screeching/bellowing/doing poor impersonations of R. Lee Emery and you might get treated the way you want to be treated. The frequent travelers (I'm one of them) play by the rules and see nothing but inconsistancies, rudeness, general confusion (on the part of TSA inspectors), rage (on the part of TSA inspectors), and a general wanna-be cop (which you fortunately aren't).

Respect our property and personsIf there is a question about respect, it should be addressed on the spot, not on this forum.

We find out about how our property has been treated after the fact. Dumping the contents of my tool chest back into the tool chest show me that that the inspector (OKC) didn't care about properly repacking the toolchest. Walking around with someone's toothbrush and other stuff (OKC) isn't professional. Personally I would throw away a toothbrush that TSA 'inspected' by hand rather than use it again.

Be consistent in what is allowed and what is disallowed from airport to airport.This one really pisses me off. Consistency is an issue that should not even be in question. The prohib list is clearly printed on the web site! www.tsa.gov go there, get the information you need and you won't have problems.

I go to the TSA website and read what is allowed 3oz or 100ml (3.4oz)depending on where you read it. I read nothing that states the containers have to be labled. Don't lable a containter even if it is under 3oz and it gets confiscated. Show me where it says you must have a label on the container, please. I see where people have had OTC medications removed from carry ons while the TSA website says that reasonable (whatever that is) amounts are allowable. I've seen medications removed for little or no reason other than the label fell off. Are you now deciding on which medications people are to take and in what dosages? That sounds like you're practicing medicine without a license.

Follow the rules that have been in place from day one and you won't have an issue. Stop your complaining and start acted like you want to be treated and you won't have a problem.

I do follow the rules. I've had my carryon torn apart in a feeble attempt at security (no liquids at all), had my tool chest have the locks cut off after being hand checked (Newark), given grief for asking that my tool chest be relocked, had a gate screener (2002) insist on removing a strip of medical tape covering a fresh surgical incision 12 inches long because the numerous staples set off the hand wand. Yes, I have lots to be angry about and you, are part of the problem, not a solution.

March 16, 2008 6:20 PM

Most of what you complain about are CLEAR violations of the SOP. Locks are only to be cut after checking to see if a TSA approved lock is in use. Bags are to be carefully and neatly re-packed. TSA inspection cards are to be placed in every checked bag that has been opened by a TSO. Yes I agree that violations are occurring, but the agency in and of itself is not at fault for these violations, it is the fault of those who perpetrate the violations. Again, address is with the agency in writing, all the way up to Kip Hawley himself if you have to. Let me tell you if I had a complaint, I wouldn't stop until SOMEONE gave me an answer! And yes I AM a TSO. Fact is I'm damned proud of my job, I do it well, and I pride myself in the fact that every bag I check is neatly and carefully re-packed. I work on checkpoint, so most times passengers will want to re-pack the bag themselves which is fine with me. However I've had a few passengers tell me that they would like me to re-pack the bag, again this is fine with me. I treat every passenger with respect and dignity no matter who they are. My tax dollars are your tax dollars and I want them spent wisely too. So address your complaints to the upper brass, the purpose of this blog is to create dialogue not for you to vent your frustrations with our Government.

I added some line returns to make your post easier to read. Sections in bold are mine. My comments inline.

Anonymous said...

Treat us like humans

If some passengers acted like humans then all passengers would be treated as such.

Wrong. It does not matter how the passenger in front of me, or the 100 passengers before him acted, that gives you NO RIGHT to treat me badly. If you can not handle that I suggest you go find a job you are capable of.

Respect our property and persons

If there is a question about respect, it should be addressed on the spot, not on this forum.

This blog was set up to address the concerns of the public, including the lack of respect shown our property and ourselves.

It is difficult to address the question on the spot as you suggest because we are punished by retaliatory screening, "do you want to fly today?' or the threat of arrest. The lack of complaint forms and missing or hidden name tags do not help the problem.

Be consistent in what is allowed and what is disallowed from airport to airport.

This one really pisses me off. Consistency is an issue that should not even be in question. The prohib list is clearly printed on the web site! www.tsa.gov go there, get the information you need and you won't have problems.

You are right it should not be a question. If my 3 oz unlabeled bottle or O-T-C medication is ok at one screening station then it should be good at all screening stations. See that is what pisses us, the traveling citizens, off.

I know this is hard to believe but not everyone has internet access. (I know, how can they live?) Can you tell me where else the TSA has placed up to date prohibited items list? I don't recall any at my local post office, Govt. office or library.

Follow the rules that have been in place from day one and you won't have an issue. Stop your complaining and start acted like you want to be treated and you won't have a problem.

The rules have changed since day one, heck the rules seem to change day to day and airport to airport.

You want the complaining to stop, you have two choices either make the change and treat each passenger with respect or wait until people are so fed up with bad TSO behavior that the offending TSO is dragged across the floor for disrespecting and bullying some old lady.

Understand, Americans will put up with a whole lot. We will put up with asinine rules, we will put up with delays, we will even put up with the authorities, until they become abusive.

Take the time to look at the history of this great country. It was founded because ordinary people were fed up with abusive authority. Wars have been started and other wars have been stopped because ordinary people were fed up with abusive authority. Presidents have fallen, and Govt. agencies have been greatly curtailed because ordinary people were fed up with abusive authority.

Remember the IRS, it too was once "unaccountable" now it is accounable. Why? Because ordinary people were fed up with its abusive authority.

You seem to be forgetting the basic principle of this blog, but I'll stop trying to convince you that you are only aggravating the situation by making threats of "dragging TSO's across the floor" which by the way, threatening a federal employee who is performing his or her duties is a federal felony punishable, well, you know the rest or do you?

...So address your complaints to the upper brass, the purpose of this blog is to create dialogue not for you to vent your frustrations with our Government.

I have literaly spent hours on the phone, spent time in face to face, and have written dozens of emails to TSA. It was a waste of time since no one was willing to address any of the issues I have/had with TSA. Your agency runs open loop (i.e. without any checks and balances), lacks accountability, and places itself above the law.

You want the complaining to stop, you have two choices either make the change and treat each passenger with respect or wait until people are so fed up with bad TSO behavior that the offending TSO is dragged across the floor for disrespecting and bullying some old lady.

You seem to be forgetting the basic principle of this blog, but I'll stop trying to convince you that you are only aggravating the situation by making threats of "dragging TSO's across the floor" which by the way, threatening a federal employee who is performing his or her duties is a federal felony punishable, well, you know the rest or do you?

March 16, 2008 9:40 PM

I see no threats either real or implied. Perhaps on your world a what if senario is considered a threat. We travelers don't like the way we're dealt with.

Lets all just bitch and complain to each other about what you think the TSO's and the TSA should and shouldn't have in their policies about new tech.

Lets us remember that we are all just humans and it is physically and mentally impossible to keep up with every new and old product there is regardless of whether its electronic or not.

Granted it would have been nice if they would have opened the thing and let it run and listen to the guy when he explained its a MacBook Air because chances are they probably heard about them. Instead of holding the guy up for god knows how long and making him mis his flight. But break downs do occur as they do in every organization.

You seem to be forgetting the basic principle of this blog, but I'll stop trying to convince you that you are only aggravating the situation by making threats of "dragging TSO's across the floor" which by the way, threatening a federal employee who is performing his or her duties is a federal felony punishable, well, you know the rest or do you?

Thank you, but I know the basic principle of this blog. Let me explain it to you. Seems Kip does not like explaining to his bosses why the TSA ranks just one step higher than FEMA and below the IRS.

Kinda amazing if you think about it, we all deal with the IRS but not everybody flies.

Anyhow, Kip would like to change the public perception of the TSA and the TSOs. In order to do that he needs honest feedback from the public he serves.

I replied to your post whining about how horrible the public is and how it would all be better if we bowed our heads followed the rule du jour, with coherent rebuttals. You know the whole dialog thing Kip talked about.

If I were the lone voice in the wilderness, I could understand you saying "just go along with the program". The program keeps changing and as you can see I am not the lone voice.

The public is talking, the problem is you have closed your ears. Thankfully this blog has plenty of good TSOs that seem to understand what we, the public, are telling you.

You see my posts as fanning the flames, I see them as pointing out the fires that need to be extinguished.

If you would like to have a dialog, please do so, but placing false accusations of a threat is not the way to do it. Maybe you misread what I wrote, I invite you to read it again. There was no threat written, if anything it was a warning.

I don't want my America to reach the point where people resort to riots. I think Kip's plan to fix what is broken at the TSA is a better route.

If I thought nothing good would come of this blog I would not waste my Sunday posting on it.

Most of what you complain about are CLEAR violations of the SOP. Locks are only to be cut after checking to see if a TSA approved lock is in use.

TSA approved locks are junk. They don't withstand the baggage handling process very well (fall apart). I give non-TSA approved locks, unlocked to on my tool chest for TSA to relock after inspection. After an X-ray and hand screening at Newark I get home to discover that my tool chest (the way I make my living) had the locks cut off inspite of my cooperating with TSA.

Bags are to be carefully and neatly re-packed. TSA inspection cards are to be placed in every checked bag that has been opened by a TSO.

What good do those cards do? Let me know that you went into my tool chest, trashed it and that TSA did it? I know that already. I had around 5 floating around the inside of my tool chest just to see if they got me better service. Nope, still trashed out. Those cards lack one very important feature, accountability. Who put that card in there? Don't know. How about issuing a personal stamp to the baggage inspectors so they may stamp the card with a number traceable to them? Takes too much time you say. Don't fix what is broken and you can point to a flawed process as a success since it works for most people.

I have in the past traveled by air several hundred thousand miles each year. On one memorable occasion at Den. Intl. Airport, while undergoing 'security' I was standing on the painted footprints which faced me AWAY from my valuables. Upon completion of security screening, I attempted to retrieve my valuables including a pocket sized electronic recorder. To my dismay my recorder was missing from the basket where I had placed it moments before. It had been taken, I assume by a thief, while my back was turned and while I was being distracted by 'security'. I stated loudly enough for the security personnel to hear that my recorder was gone. Their IMMEDIATE retore was, "You should have kept an eye on it". this was said in a tone that clearly conveyed that it was my fault that I had permitted it to be stolen. Needless to say this was valuable to me, and contained information which was quite valuable to me.

Now when undergoing screening, I make it a point to stand in such a way that I can observe the basket containing my valuables, and this has occasioned sharp exchanges with security personnel.

What precisely does the TSA SUGGEST as a method of watching one's valuables while undergoing individual security screening?

Consistancy across the board for all would be a nice idea. However, because each airport is designed differently, there may be inconsistancies. Also, not every TSO has 5 1/2 years experence being a screener.

When I became a TSO, (my class of 320 or so), the average age was about 32. These people had a great deal of work and customer related experence. That is not the case any more. The airport I work at had a 30-35% atrition rate. Of the 320 in my class five years ago there are only 16 left. Some have retired, some have found other jobs, most have quit because of the daily stress and pressure to process the traveling public in an expiditious manner.

So the next time a TSO can't identify a lap-top computer, or is not being professional, it may be because thay might not have the experence to know better.

Please then get the supervisor involved, they are the ones who can correct the situation and train the TSO to do his her job right.

The public is improtant to us.I'm sorry a TSO abused you or your property.

I think everyone can agree that getting the TSA out ahead of the next significant technology would be better then the alternative. Seriously, why do we need to continue with practices from 40+ years ago that are no longer effective?

This is pretty nice! I wish the TSO'S would consider things like this!

From my point of view, they do need to keep everything secured! I love to feel secured when I am on a Plane and I have the right to feel like that as everybody else..to be honest I think they shouldn't allow anything on planes except important personal things.. like cmon you can live without your laptop for few hours! that is my personal opinion tho, I think alot of people will disagree with that but yea..

Thanks for the great post and merry xmass all, god bless our country :)